major libraries: the Library of Congress; the National Library of Medicine; and the National Agricultural Library. As a result, these institutions are able to perform many important national library functions that benefit the people of the United States. In 1973, the Administration recommended the elimination of Federal grant programs for libraries. It recommended revenue sharing as an alternative method of supporting libraries, and the General Revenue Sharing Act qualified libraries to receive appropriations for operating expenses. The preponderance of testimony to the Commission indicates that the revenue sharing mechanism does not work well for libraries. The revenue sharing mechanism is unsatisfactory for libraries because it forces them to compete for funds with local governments and their utilitarian agencies, such as the police and fire departments. As educational agents in the community, libraries provide long-range services to all people, but, unfortunately, it is difficult to justify this as a local priority when conspicuous utilitarian problems need immediate correction. As a result, city officials in some cities are reluctant to share some revenue with libraries. Indications received by the Commission thus far reveal that, in some localities, revenue sharing money is offsetting normal operating budgets of libraries, rather than providing them with funds for new programs and services. In such circumstances, it is unlikely that revenue sharing funds will have any impact at all on cooperative action programs or intersystem planning. Recent actions by the Congress have restored appropriations for many of the categorical aid programs which were eliminated, but the policy of the Administration continues to favor their eventual termination. The President's budget for fiscal year 1975, released for information and Congressional action in January 1974, mentioned a new Federal initiative in the area of library services. It outlines the provisions of new legislation, called the Library Partnership Act. This proposed bill calls for the improvement of library services through a system of grants fostering interlibrary cooperation and through demonstrations of basic library services where these are nonexistent or marginal. The general purposes of the bill are akin to those of Title III of the LSCA with the objectives more closely specified and the eligible community broadened. While the Commission endorses individual activities which benefit libraries and users of libraries, it is even more strongly disposed to support a well-planned, comprehensive program for library and information services, one that will benefit the entire nation. Categorical aid available to libraries under an array of authorizations has resulted in improved library services in all types of libraries. However, many of the worthy goals are yet to be achieved. The Commission believes that categorical aid must be continued and strengthened until a comprehensive new program is authorized and adequately funded. States and local governments vary greatly in the amount of financial assistance they give to libraries. Moreover, the way Federal funds are used within the states varies widely. Some have used the money for state-level direction and coordination, while others have spent it on new or improved local services. The Federal principle of requiring matching funds from the state and/or local governments has, itself, had varied effects. In some instances, it has led states to originate state programs that didn't exist before. In other cases, it has not yet achieved matching state aid for libraries. However, in general, wealthy states have been able to take greater advantage of the opportunity than poor states, even though the real need may have been greater among the latter. Past Federal funding has succeeded in fulfilling part of the original objectives of Federal legislation, but by no means all of them. An enlightened public policy of support for libraries and other information activities, and continuing financial assistance, are dual objectives which the Commission considers vital to the National Program. If the nation is to look forward to constructive development and utilization of knowledge resources throughout the country, an infusion of financial assistance on a large scale is mandatory, and the United States must also revise its philosophy on how Federal and state funding should be allocated to support this nationwide purpose. What is needed is a program of balanced intergovernmental funding. It is premature to stipulate the criteria for requesting financial assistance from the Federal Government under the National Program, but some suggestions are here put forward for consideration. For example, each recipient would be asked in advance to: |