Mr. STEED. I am sure you are aware of the fact that the proposal presently before the committee would include a program in only three countries, that there is contemplated only about $67,000 of direct dollar appropriation, that it would require the remainder to come out of U.S. owned local currencies of these three countries.

That being true, and this being, therefore, in the nature of a pilot program, is it your expectation, presuming the program works satisfactorily, that it would be ultimately extended to other areas of the globe?

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question, first I am satisfied that this pilot program will clearly establish its worth, so much so that it will become a regular and permanent thing and also so much so that I am sure it will be expanded into other areas where we have need for this kind of information for American scholars and for American educators and libraries.

Mr. STEED. Have you seen estimates as to what a complete program under the terms of your amendment would cost?

Mr. DINGELL. I cannot say that I have. There may be such estimates available to the committee which I have not seen, but I think this is something which can grow under the guidance and under the watchful eye of this committee in a manner which will be best in the public interest. I would say there are large areas in this world where a program of this sort is not really necessary, or at least only the most modest kind of program under my amendment to Public Law 480.

The reason is that with the more advanced countries-Germany, France, England, Italy-we have already exchange programs where we exchange information, we exchange library cards, we have translators and people who are available to do the kind of work we need on an exchange basis with great institutions like the Library of Congress and some other great libraries in this country. However, in Egypt, Syria, and other areas where this pilot program is proposed and areas like India or eastern Europe or southeastern Europe or even in Russia and places of this sort, we do not have the attention given to this kind of thing because of the fact that the countries do not have the national treasury to devote to this sort of thing.

As a result, this is the area, in my opinion, where this will have the greatest benefit to the American people and where there will be the greatest opportunity to expand this program.

Mr. STEAD. Mr. Bow, do you have any questions?

Mr. Bow. Mr. Dingell, do I understand you have no idea what they might have in mind that this program will get into before we are through with it?

Mr. DINGELL. I would not want to answer the question exactly that way. I would say this program will grow, I am satisfied. I do not know exactly what the ultimate program will contain either insofar as expenditure of counterpart funds or insofar as expenditure of appropriated dollars is concerned.

Mr. Bow. This is of great benefit to many of the large libraries and universities throughout the country. How would you feel about working it as we do the catalog cards and other services the Library of Congress provides for certain libraries throughout the country where

we would do this work and then be compensated by the universities and the libraries throughout the country on an actual cost basis?

Mr. DINGELL. There are several things on that. I would not have any objection to the cards. Incidentally, the cards which my good friend and colleague refers to are going to be one of the principal things which will come from this rather than the actual purchase of the book. I would not have any objection to having those sold. I feel, however, that there is a distinct possibility that if we did that on an actual cost basis, the cost of the cards might be prohibitive.

Mr. Bow. I mean cost of all the materials we gather abroad. We are going to get these, and it is going to be through this centralized work and to be used with funds from the Treasury. Most of these libraries have large endowments and foundations and are supported. What would be wrong with their actually paying the cost to the Government of procuring these things for them?

Mr. DINGELL. My good friend always asks good questions. Actually, this program, if it were done on an actual cost basis of the service to the library and research institution or university which received this, I am afraid it would be prohibitive to the school or to the library which participated in the program. I have no objection to sale of the cards and other information desired on an intelligent and fair basis.

As a second thing, I would like to point out to the committee, I think this is something largely overlooked, many of the libraries, many of the schools now engage on their own and make very significant expenditures in this field.

This is not an area where we are picking up something in an area where our libraries and our schools and research institutions have failed to take an active and a vigorous part. They have made significant expenditures already in this field to conduct similar programs. They now are finding not only in the case of schools, institutions of learning, research institutions and libraries, but all institutions which operate in this general field of endeavor, that there is just not enough money available to run, for example, in the case of a university, the student programs which they have. They actually operate most of their student programs at a deficit. Many of these universities are now actually running over not only what they have in the way of income from tuition but also income from their endowments, which are just not keeping pace with the expansion of their costs.

That is why I would approach something of this sort with the greatest of caution. If the cards could be sold even on something approaching a fairly compensatory basis, I would not have any objection, but I would have objection if the cost of these were such that it would deprive our libraries and research institutions of the benefits of the program as contemplated by me when I introduced the amendment.

Mr. Bow. The gentleman has brought up exactly what I have in mind when he talks about the difficulties the colleges are having with deficits and tuition and things of that kind. I am reminded of something. We have today a debt of about $288 billion. The second highest cost we have in the budget of the United States is the interest on the national debt. The interest on the debt costs nearly $17,000 every minute of the day and night, every day of the year. I am

hesitant about getting any new programs that are going to further increase our own debt, and I am trying to find some way-I think it is an ideal way if we could work it out-to maybe recover some dollars in some of these foreign countries if we can get these people to pay it. This is another program we are entering into. I admit it is only $721,700 this year, but last year they asked for $2,811,000. It seems to me probably this smaller figure is just an attempt to get a program started and that we can look for a much larger one. They even indicated last year the $2.8 million was a beginning.

Mr. DINGELL. I will agree with the gentleman that this is a beginning, and I will be frank enough to say that I hope this program will grow. I would point out that in large numbers of these areas these counterpart funds will probably accrue little, if any, benefit to the American people at all over the long haul. They are being forgiven, they are being utilized for various purposes, travel of American officials, all these things are commendable, but we are finding now we are having a hard time spending these counterpart funds. I do not think spending counterpart funds on a program of this sort is going to be a critical item in the budget.

The dollars which are spent may be, and it may be that there are better ways of getting these counterpart funds back to our people in the form of dollars, but I have not found any. I have not found many which commend themselves to me at least as serving a pressing need of the American people.

In other words, here we are accumulating precious dollars in areas where we need it, in areas where scholars and research institutions say it is desperately needed, where we have to have it to frankly perfect our knowledge of the world and of other peoples, to maintain skills in languages and in customs. It is my feeling that there will be a significant benefit conferred on this country in the field of national defense from this program by keeping ourselves aware of geopolitical, social, technical trends abroad.

I would say for that reason that this is a worthwhile program. I hope my good friend from Ohio will look at this very carefully and I hope he will find it possible to be able to support it.

Mr. Bow. That is all.

Mr. STEED. Congressman, we are glad you came here today and glad you presented your views on this important matter and in helping us make the record on this proposition.

Mr. DINGELL. May I leave a statement by Mortimer Graves of West Newbury, Mass., former president of the American Council of Learned Societies, who is also honorary president of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Association, for inclusion. in the record.

Mr. STEED. We will be glad to have it. (Mr. Graves' statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. MORTIMER GRAVES OF WEST NEWBURY, MASS., TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE BUDGET INCREASE TO INITIATE A PROGRAM FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOREIGN LIBRARY MATERIALS OF TECHNICAL, SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL, OR EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE The common denominator of every crisis-in Laos, Suez, Congo, Cuba-is the lack of American comprehension of what is going on in the minds of these strange people whose historical experiences, cultural traditions, and present

69462-61-21

conditions of life are so different from our own. Even when our formal machinery of political information and military intelligence gages correctly a crisis situation, Americans as a whole are always surprised to discover that the affected people do not think as we do and do not respond to the crisis as we expect them to.

This is not anybody's fault, and if it were, there would be no point in laboring the question here. The fact is that the crowded, diverse, scientific minded, socializing, dynamic world of the second half of the 20th century has welled upon us too fast for our media of education and information to adjust themselves to it. The great foundations-Rockefeller, Carnegie, and most recently and on a grander scale Ford-saw the resultant problem as it emerged. Over the past 35 years they have provided the venture capital with which the questions raised by the adjustment could be explored. They have not, and cannot, complete a solution, but through their efforts we now know something of its nature, its magnitude, and the measures which can contribute to this end.

These measures are three: The development of an adequate body of highly trained American specialists in all the relevant fields of inquiry; the provision of the tools of study, teaching, and research with which these specialists have to work; and the inclusion within general education of such subject matter as will assure the complete employment of the specialists and their tools in the national interest. The task is immense and imperative if the United States is still to be a first-class power in the year 2100.

In these sections of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 devoted to the so-called neglected languages and area studies, the Federal Government exhibited and implemented a concern with this problem. The one element omitted in this legislation, however, is the development of an adequate national library structure, and the library is, in this field of inquiry, just what the laboratory is to the natural scientist. On the hardware side of our national security, we have no difficulty in accepting the fact that a modern airplane to say nothing of a missile-costs 20 to 50 times as much as did the comparable armament of a generation ago. Why then should we quail at the idea that another such element in our security, the library, might cost three to five times as much? If it is to be adequate to the needs of the richest and most powerful country the world has ever known, faced with the problems of living-indeed of leading-intelligently in the 21st century, it ought to cost 10 times as much. The passage of the Dingell amendment to Public Law 83-480 (sec. 104-n of title I) providing that foreign currencies derived from sales of agricultural surpluses abroad should be used by the Librarian of Congress for the acquisition, complete servicing, and eventual deposit in American libraries of significant "foreign books, periodicals, and related materials" seemed to indicate that Congress and the President had recognized an immense national problem and determined to do something about it. The legislation was greeted with enthusiasm by all educational and intellectual leaders competent to make a judgment. The Librarian of Congress unhesitatingly accepted the responsibility laid upon him by the law; he employed his own time and effort and that of his staff in developing a series of relevant programs, in carrying them through the Bureau of the Budget, and in representing them before the appropriate committees of Congress.

To date, these programs have died in the Committees on Appropriations, and the will of the American people as indicated by legislation passed by the whole Congress and signed by the President is so far unfulfilled. The committees now have before them a third such program. It is a small program, on the scale of the national need almost a trivial one. It is already about 20 years late, but if we are ever to get started, now is the time.

The funds required are in two categories: 90 percent in otherwise almost valueless local currencies and 10 percent in dollars. Since the legislation has already determined that these very perishable local currencies should be used for this purpose, discussion of this utilization in this context of appropriation is beside the point. Nevertheless it is worthwhile to keep in mind the facts that the only value these currencies have is determined by our willingness to accept in return for them goods and services which the issuing countries can produce, and that practically every financial authority advocates cancellation of these currencies as the best way of solving the problem of their continuing acquisition. The question is solely whether we are to get something for them or nothing. With respect to the small dollar appropriation, as a taxpayer fully conscious of the tax burden, I should be quite happy to support a much larger program of this kind even if it had to be paid for in dollars. I am quite convinced that in

the long run we shall have to make very much larger dollar appropriations for this kind of thing-indeed S. 1154 already proposes doing so, and it has my hearty support, save for some details. The existence of these otherwise valueless local currencies which can be used for this purpose is just a happy accident. The burden of proof otherwise is on him who would propose some better employment for them.

Mr. DINGELL. I appreciate the courtesy of this committee and the kindness of the committee in allowing me to be present this morning, and I commend the committee for its diligent and distinguished service to the Congress of the United States.

Mr. STEED. We thank you for your kind words.

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1961.

OVERSEA LIBRARY PROCUREMENT (SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY

PROGRAM)

WITNESS

WILLIAM DIX, LIBRARIAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

Mr. STEED. If you will identify yourself for the record, you may proceed with your formal statement and then we may have some questions.

Mr. Dix. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is William Dix. I am the librarian of Princeton University and a member of the advisory committee of the Association of Research Libraries, which has authorized me to testify in its behalf in support of the amendment to the budget for the fiscal year 1962 proposed by the President in his communication of March 23, 1961— House Document No. 118.

The Association of Research Libraries is an organization of some 50 of the major research libraries of the country, dedicated to strengthening the collections and services of research libraries for the support of scholarship. It is the prime function of the research library to gather and make available for use the books and journals needed by the scholars who depend upon these libraries for the support of their work. No one needs to be persuaded today that the work of these scholars is in the national interest. In particular, it is now clear that expanded study, at the highest academic level, is necessary if this country is to acquire the knowledge of the language, the culture, the economy, the psychology of many parts of the world which we need if we are to deal with them effectively in this decade and later. The kind of knowledge in depth which can in turn be used at the operating levels of government and business is collected and assimilated at academic research centers. For this kind of knowledge a steady flow of publications from throughout the world is essential. World War II made clear that the United States was woefully deficient in detailed knowledge of many parts of the world. The major libraries of the country, to help fill this gap, started in 1948 a cooperative acquisition project known as the Farmington plan. Some 65 libraries have divided up the fields of knowledge and the countries of the world and have tried to bring into the country at their own ex