CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the motion of the gentle-
man from Kentucky (Mr. Snyper]. Mr.
Chairman, I had hoped that we would
complete this bill an hour and a half ago.
I dislike seeing politics brought into a
library. bill, as seems to have been the
ease today under the leadership of my
friend from New Jersey.

This bill originally was sponsored by
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Lanpruml, back in 1956 and was ex-
tended under the leadership of the gen-
tleman from Alabama [Mr. Eunrorri by
an almost unanimous vote in this House.
It was passed by the Senate committee a
few weeks ago by a vote of 89 to 7. Why
in the world we are wasting so much
time on a bill that so many people in
every congressional district want is more
than I can understand. I do not know
of 9, library in any congressional district,
TZ do not know of one person interested
in the education of our youth in any con-
eressional district, I do not know of a
State officeholder of any State in the
Union, who is cpposed to this particular
bill. But under the leadership of the
Republican Party in the House of Rep-
resentatives this afternoon we are seeing
for the first time since 1956 partisan
politics injected into the question of the
youth of our country and into our
library situation. ,

As far as the gentleman from Ken-
tuecky [Mr. Snyper] is concerned, there
is no one I know of in our country who
knows more about the needs of the
libraries than the people attached to the
American Library Association, I do not
know of any person who has given us
more information on the needs of the
libraries than those American Library
Association representatives who are. op-
erating here in the Nation’s Capital.
When the gentleman puts the American
Library Association in the same company
as the American Farm Bureau and
others, he is doing a great disservice to
everyone who has a sincere interest in
libraries all over our country.

The American Library Association is
not a lobby organization. It is an asso-
ciation of librarians, dedicated librarians,
who aré working with great diligence to
improve library facilities all over the
country. ,

The Washington staff of this associa~

729

tion has done a distinct service for all
the people of every congressional district
in these United States. I am personally
grateful for the efforts they have ex-
pended to improve the brary situation
throughout the entire country for I know
that any progress they are able to make

nationwide will have a definite, salutary

effect on my own congressional district
aud the people I am privileged to rep-
resent.

If there is a State in the Union that
needs a bill like this, that needs help to
educate their youth, to establish schools
and to get rid of poverty and illiteracy
as we know it today, it is the State of
Kentucky that the gentleman who has
just spoken comes from. I do not believe
there is a State in the Union that needs
help more than the State of Kentucky.
Why he is up here trying to emasculate
this program is more than I can under-
stand. . :

When the gentleman from New Jersey
iMr. Fae.INGHUYSEN] gets up here and
tries to emasculate this program, to de-
feat it, if you will, it disturbs me. Com-
ing from the second most urbanized State
in the country, second only to my own
State of Rhode Island, in my opinion he is
doing 4 disservice to every single person,
not only in his own congressional district
but in the entire State of New Jersey.
They need this legislation just as much
as Kentucky does.

I can understand my friend, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow], for the
opposition he takes because he has always
opposed it. He opposed it back in 1956,
he opposed it when the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Eviiorr] tried to get it
extended, he is cpposed to it now. He
is not in favor of amending it. He is
opposed to the enactment of this kind
oflegislation. _

Normally I can understand opposition
to & bill but in this case I cannot under-
stand it because Ohio is as bad off as any
State in the Union. I just do not see
any Member from Ohio voting against
this kind of legislation or voting. for
amendments that have the effect and in-
tent of killing the legislation.

As far as I know the leaders in every
congressional district in the State of Ohio
have endorsed this type of legislation.
I know when $7.5 million was available
there was not a person from Ohio who
ever got up on the ficor and said, “We
do not need the $7.5 million.” When
the gentleman from New Jersey gets up
here and says, “No, I want to give them
a, little more money, I want to give them
$15 million, I want to raise the popula-
tion ratio from 10,000 to 20,000,” that
does not mean a thing. It is just an at-
tempt and a very obvious attempt to
defeat this legislation.

I am sorry that the leadership on the
Republican side has allowed politics to
be brought into what should be a non-
partisan issue here today, the libraries
of. our country. In my particular area,
and I do not think mine is any different
from Chic or New Jersey, since 1956 the
loaning of books has doubled, the amount
of money from 1956 that has been ap-
propriated at the local and State level,
730

has increased by 100 percent. That is
what this legislation has accomplished.

Mr. .Chairman, my belief in the im-
portance of public libraries is well known...
I also believe that this bill, the Library
Services and Construction Act, will make
possible a giant step toward public li-
brary services of real excellence for every
citizen.

~Within its limitations, the Library
Services. Act of 1956 has had amazing
success in providing rural readers with
more and. better books. Rhode Island
began participating in this program. in
1958. Since that time 43 rural commu-
nity libraries have received book grants,
professional advisory services, and cen~
tralized book preparation. The super-~
visor of this program, Miss Elizabeth G.
Myer, has reported that the number of
books leaned from these libraries dou-
bled between 1956 and 1963. Local ex-
penditures for public libraries also in-
creased about 100 percent over the same
period. The substantial increase in the
use of books is tangible evidence of im-
proved facilities. ‘The significant in-
erease in local appropriations demon-
strates the success of the program in
stimulating increased State and. local
financial effort.

The progress in other. States has
matched that in Rhode Island. Since
1961, all eligible States and territories
have been participating in this State-
plan, matching-grant program. The ac-
complishments of the act have been rece
ognized and applauded, not only by li-
brarians and congressional sponsors, but
most importantly, by the 38 million rural
readers who have used the improved
services of their local libraries. It is es-
sential to remember that this program is
not for State libraries, or for local li-
braries, or for librarians. It is for the
128 million citizens who neither have no
local library whatever or who must use
overcrowded, obsolete, and understaffed
library facilities.

The limitation of the present program
to areas of less than 10,000 population
has been a real handicap to every State.
Iti has denied benefits to the sorely
pressed larger libraries and, in turn, pre-
vented their strengths from being fully
utilized in extending services to rural
and suburban areas. In Rhode Island, a
heavily urbanized State, the number of
people eligible for participation will in-
crease from 146,054 to 859,488 if HLR.
4879 is passed.

The rural population will continue to
be helped under the proposed amend-
ment; in fact, perhaps better than be-
fore. By virtue of combining resources
of all libraries—large, medium, and small,
not to mention bookmobiles, a compre-
hensive plan of library service can be
achieved. The necessary efficiency in
public library operation for the people
of the United States can be achieved only
by having public libraries of various sizes
and in different localities cooperate
jointly in the use of the resources of
each. This bill will facilitate this situ-
ation.

An essential component of a good pub--

lic library system is adequate physical
facilities. The present act specifically
prohibits the use of funds for the pur-

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE.

chase or construction of buildings or for
the purchase of land because it is a li-
brary services program and deals with
villages and farming communities. In
Rhode Island and throughout the coun-
try too many of. our public libraries are
struggling with overcrowded, dilapidated,
and makeshift quarters. Other commu-
nities have long outgrown the familiar
Carnegie buildings which, on the aver-
age, date from about 1920. Of ail public
libraries in the Nation, only 4 percent
have been constructed since 1940. H.R.
4879, the Library Services and Construc-
tion Act, will provide $20 million in
matching grants to give assistance and
encouragement to communities like
these.

Some colleagues seem to be. worried
about the proposed great. expenditure
for the services and facilities of public
libraries. In actuality, the Federal Gov-
ernment is contributing only a small! per-
centage to the deficiencies in funds for
operating adequately our public libraries.
In fiscal year 1961, for example, the total
operating expenditures for public’ li-
braries was $285 million, whereas accord-
ing to minimum standards formulated by
the American Library Association, the
total amount spent for services should
have been $480. million for that year, an
annual gap in operating expenditures
of $195 million. This bill proposes that

in order to lessen the deficiency, the Fed- ~

eral. Government should contribute for
library services the sum of $25 million,
about. 12 percent of the’ gap.

The Library Services Act of 1956 has
made possible an excellent beginning.

‘I am so impressed by this progress that

Iam confident of continued accelerating
accomplishment. H.R. 4879, by correct-
ing lacks in the present program, will
advance the cause of good libraries to
the point where each citizen can expect
his public library to be an educational
resource of excellence. .

The American public library is a solid
fortress in the war on poverty. Free to
all, the public library meets the’ user on
his own terms by providing the kinds of
books and other library materials which
he needs. Books, films, and recordings
are expensive. Those adults who have
just begun to read English, those laborers
whose jobs have been automated, those
immigrants whose original culture has
not prepared them for life in our big
cities cannot possibly afford to buy the
informational materials they require.
The free public library is their most im-
portant single resource for this kind of
assistance.

I believe that H.R. 4879, the Library

Services and Construction Act will allow

States and localities to move swiftly and
strongly toward the goal of good public
library service for every citizen. This
bill will greatly improve the present pro-
gram being carried out under the Library
Services Act of 1956. This ongoing pro-
gram has had excellent success. Every
eligible State and territory is fully par-
ticipating and they are ready to move
in this expanded program. Every State
has been handicapped by the present lim-
itation of assistance to areas of under
10,000 population. My State is heavily
urbanized and this restriction denies as-

January 21

sistance .to more than 700,000 persons.
The removal of this limitation will aid
the struggling public libraries in our
urban and suburban areas. In addition,
it will permit the efficient use of their
resources in a way which will make them
available to all those who need them,
whether these users live in the city, the
suburb, the small town, or in the open
country.

It. is impossible to imagine good public
libraries without efficient, functional
buildings. Far too many libraries, in
Rhode Island, and throughout the land
are rendered ineffective because of over-
crowded and obsolete buildings. H.R.
4879 anticipates the joint need for im-
proved services and for renewed physical
facilities. The provision in this bill for
construction is based on the demon-
strated success of the State plan concept.
The requirement of matching funds from
State and local sources assures that this
will be a program of stimulation and en-
couragement. I believe that every level
of government has a continuing respon-
sibility for building library services of
real excellence. The partnership pro-
gram which has developed under the Li-
brary Services Act now involves State,
local, and Federal efforts in a joint _
undertaking to this end. Now our goal
is to improve and. extend this program
so that all aspects of the problem can
be attacked at the same time.

I am confident that H.R. 4879, if
passed, will be a historic turning point
in public library development. No aspect
of our entire educational system is more
important than the firm foundation
which is provided by having good librar-
ies freely and conveniently available. I
support the Library Services and Con-
struction Act and urge its prompt en-
actment.

Mr. Chairman, a previous reference
has been made to the new budget. In
view of this I should like to set the rec-
ord straight. Here are the facts.

The fiscal 1965 budget which President
Johnson has submitted today breaks
new ground:

Ii reduces total Federal spending by
$500 million—yet, within that total, it.
provides for major increases in the fields
of education, health, labor, and welfare.

It proposes to cut the Federal deficit —
in half—yet it calls for an $11 billion tax
reduction, and provides the largest year-
to-year economic stimulus of any peace-
time budget.

It is perfectly natural to wonder how
a single budget can accomplish these
various—and ‘at first glance, contradic-
tory—objectives. But, Mr. Chairman, I
submit that a closer examination will
show how this budget is a closely rea-
soned, careful program with clear and
straightforward objectives and a con-
sistent, philosophical foundation.

In the first place, this budget is built
upon the premise that frugality in Fed-
eral expenditures can be a weapon for
social progress. Out of the savings made

_Possible by a hardheaded and politically

courageous review of lower priority ex-
penditures and obsolete installation,
funds have been released for use in con-
structive ways to help the American peo-
ple—and especially to enable those mil-
1964

lions of Americans living in poverty to
help themselves. Frugality has not been
practiced merely for frugality’s sake.
‘This budget proposes major increases in
funds for education, youth employment
opportunities, manpower training, voca-
tional education. and rehabilitation,
health, and welfare. It also proposes the
launching of an intensive attack against
poverty in. our local communities, and
provides the funds for this attack. A
tight budget, Mr. Chairman, need not be
a stagnant one.

In the second place, this budget is a
fiscally expansionary budget. But it pro-
poses to achieve economic expansion not
through a vast: increase in Federal out-
lays, but through a major reduction and
reform in taxes. In 1964 the reduction in
withholding taxes provided by this
budget will put some $8 billion of addi-
tional money into the pockets of Ameri-
can consumers. Corporate tax reduction
‘will increase corporate profits. And as
this additional purchasing power moves
through the economy, it will build new
markets and create new jobs. When
fully effective, the tax cut will add $30
billion to our gross-national product over
and above the economy’s normal growth.
it will provide 2 to 3 million extra jobs,
for the unemployed and the young peo-
ple coming into the labor market.

Mr. Chairman, as.I said earlier, no.

other peacetime budget has ever pro-
vided as much economic stimulus as this
one.

The effective way to end budget defic-
its is through the combination of eco-
nomic expansion and expenditure con-
trol. As new jobs and new markets are
created, national income rises—and,
along with it, Federal revenues. Given
the tremendous potential of our eco-
nomy—now partially idle—economic ex-
pansion will more than yield back. the
revenues initially lost from tax reduction.

In short, Mr. Chairman, a careful re-
view of the budget we have received
demonstrates that fiscal expansion can
accompany. strict expenditure control
and that a frugal budget can be a socially
progressive one.

. Mr. JONES. of. Missouri. Mr. Chair-
man, I have asked unanimous consent to
extend my remarks at this point in the
Recorp, inasmuch as I was denied the
privilege of making these remarks on the

ficor, due to the fact that a motion of .

the chairman of the Education and
Labor Committee, to conclude all debate
at 5:15, was adopted. I was on my feet

seeking recognition at that time. A’

preferential motion consumed all of the
time prior to 5:15 o’clock and none of
those seeking recognition were permitted
to speak. I will state here the remarks
I had intended to make on the floor, in
support of the Frelinghuysen amend-
ment. ;

I have been a supporter of the Library
Services Act, and believe that under it
a most valuable service has been ren-~
dered, particularly in the rural areas of
this Nation, including the 10th Congres-
sional District in Missouri. I favor the
continuation of this program, and would
vote to increase the amount of funds
which would be available under the
Frelinghuysen amendment, which would
also expand the areas of service.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

However; Iam unalterably opposed to
the new sections of the bill which pro-
pose to embark upon a federally financed
construction program for Ibraries,
starting with an initial appropriation of
$20 million. Where such a program
would lead, it is difficult to estimate,
put judging from other programs which
were started on a small scale, with very
small allocations to each State, but
which have grown to enormous propor-
tions; I think-it is not unlikely that such
a program would eventually be expanded
to a point where it would cost the Fed-
eral Government not less than $100 mil-
Hon annually. Such a program is not
needed, and I oppose it. .

We have been reminded that when the
Library Services Act was adopted in
1956, all of the sponsors and the leader-
ship of this. House assured us that this
was @ 5-year program, with a termina-
tion date. Some of those who made
these statements back in 1956, and who
are supporting the expanded program
today, readily admit that they were in
error at that time. I believe they are
wrong today. :

I think it should be understood by
everyone that the present program does
not expire until 1966, and there is no
urgency for any legislation to merely
continue the program which has been
operated so successfully. As stated pre-
viously I have supported and would like
to continue to support the program
which has been in operation, but I can-
not in geed conscience vote to approve
an entirely new program, which calls
for the appropriation of Federal funds
for the construction of library buildings
in cities and communities, which are al-
ready. supplied with library facilities
which far exceed those which are avail~
able in our rural areas. Particularly is
this true in the District of Columbia,
which by no stretch of the imagination
can justify the allocation of Federal
funds for library construction purposes
when the need is so great in our rural
areas which are being benefited through
the present act. We are. continually
pouring money down rat holes in the
District of Columbia, and this proposed
bill is another instance of where commit-
tees of Congress are continually trying
to give the District of Columbia the
status of a State, and to apportion funds
to the District on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my inten-
tion to vote for a continuation, yes, even
an expansion of the Library Services Act,
but I will not, and I cannot in good con-
science lend my support to, or vote for
any legislation which proposes to appro-
priate monéy from the Federal Treas-
ury for building library buildings in com-
munities which already have facilities
far better than those in. our rural com-
munities, which have been benefited by
the present act, and which would con-
tinue to. be benefited by this act if the
Frelinghuysen amendment is adopted.
It is my belief that to adopt the bill in
its present form, will actually take away
from the rural areas benefits which have
been justified and which they have re-
ceived in the past.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I will
support amendments and motions de=-
signed to remove the construction pro=-

Tol

visions, and will vote against the bill if
they are permitted to remain in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the preferential motion offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Snyper].

The preferential motion was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now
recurs on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frr-
LINGHUYSEN].

Mr, FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chair-
raan appointed ‘as tellers Mr. POWELL
and Mr. FReLINGHUYSEN.

The Committee divided, and the tellers
reported that there were—ayes 138, noes
121.

So the amendments were agreed to.