Mr. Venn, I will say to you that your statement is helpful in giving us some view of what the administration feels regarding this question. There are points with which I frankly disagree and there are points on which I do agree. As you are aware, while I am a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 8839, I also had introduced this separate bill, H.R. 908. In H.R. 908, the Commission is a part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, rather than separate. Thus, I do support your position on that question. I think it more appropriately belongs in HEW. I disagree that the Secretary, however, ought to make the appointments. With all due respect to Mr. Finch, the Secretary, I think the status of the Commission-its role-would be strengthened if it is a presidential commission, and thus I for one will not help you on trying to make the Secretary's job even harder by giving him those extra appointments to make. I wonder if you can clarify for me the question that has been tossed around here as to just what is the role of the Commission. I am not sure that I fully comprehend what you foresee as its purpose in being established. You agree it ought to be established, you support the concept, and it is at that point that we break down as to just where it is that the Commission ought to go. Can you give to me some résumé of the points in section 5(a) of H.R. 8839 with which you would disagree or which you feel ought to be changed, and then let me ask you whether there are points in section 3(b) of H.R. 908 that you think more appropriate or less appropriate, as contrasted to the bill now before us. Mr. VENN. That is a large question. Let me attempt to respond, Mr. Steiger, to the overall concept of the Commission. We do not question at all that there is a great need for an overall look at the programs. I think the question that we are raising is whether or not the Commission's role is primarily advising and coordinating or is the Commission's role operational in terms of carrying out, conducting, and administering programs of its own. Mr. STEIGER. If I can interrupt you, you really don't see the Commission, do you, as a coordinating body? Is that either a role that it can effectively carry out on a part-time basis, even with a staff, and a limited budget? Mr. VENN. There should be representation on this Commission from other agencies of the Federal Government. The Commission would be independent to make its own recommendations. Representatives from other agencies could bring to this Commission information on the research that they are doing, the Commission, being independent— and I imagine more objective than some of us would be about our own programs-could then take a look and indicate an area in which there is a gap or an area in which we need additional study. The Commission could then report back to these agencies that they consider the recommendations in the context of their program. I think this would be a better approach than to develop a large operational set of technicians and special within the Commission. Mr. STEIGER. I understand that. But that doesn't answer my question on the coordination. Is that really a role it can play? Mr. VENN. In terms of the Commission actually administering and assigning functions to the operating agencies this could not be done in terms of authorizations already written into law and now in effect. Mr. STEIGER. It can play an evaluation role, however? Mr. VENN. I think it could make judgments and make recommendations and I think the agencies involved would be most happy to have this input and would be anxious to carry it out. Mr. STEIGER. To go on to what specific items in either of the bills before this subcommittee will pose problems, can you come back to us with comments along that line, if you cannot make them now? Mr. VENN. I would prefer to submit the additional comments to this question for the record. Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The information referred to follows:) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION'S ROLE AS DESCRIBED IN H.R. 8839 (SEC. 5 (a)) VERSUS H.R. 908 (SEC. 3 (b)) On the whole, the Department favors the provisions of H.R. 908, Sec. 3(b), over those of H.R. 8839, Sec. 5(a). We feel that the role assigned to the Commission by H.R. 908 would be the more realistic one, in terms of the Commission's size and resources, and in terms of the Nation's library and information needs. H.R. 8839 situates the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science in HEW for administrative purposes only. H.R. 908 places the Commission in HEW. We feel that this would be wiser, since it would encourage a more direct relationship between the work and recommendations of the Commission and HEW's extensive involvement in the administration of Federal aid programs to school, public, and academic libraries. H.R. 8839 subsumes responsibilities for overall planning for "meeting national library and informational needs and for the coordination of activities at the Federal, State, and local levels ***" under the aegis of the Commission. H.R. 908 does not vest the Commission with overall planning authority; it recommends that the Commission "encourage better coordination of activities to improve administration of such laws at the Federal, State, and local levels ***." We prefer the language in H.R. 908, because it asserts the Commission's role as a coordinator, rather than an instigator, of planning activities. Since the Commission would not have regulatory powers, its role could only be that of an advisory and coordinating body, and H.R. 809 reflects this principle. In line with its view of the Commission as a coordinating mechanism, H.R. 908 further directs that the National Commission "recommend methods of support and coordination of activities, taking into consideration Federal agencies concerned with service and research in the field of libraries and information science.' H.R. 8839 has no comparable provision. We favor the inclusion of such a provision. Both bills provide for research functions for the Commission, and although we favor language making it clear that the Commission would not be conducting research projects itself, we prefer the H.R. 908 provision. Difference in the wording of the two bills is subtle here, but it should be noted that H.R. 908 recommends only that "opportunities for research" be promoted, while H.R. 8839 directs the Commission to "promote research ***" Since the Commission would not have the resources to conduct research, H.R. 908 more clearly implies that the Commission would not be expected to do so, and therefore we prefer its wording. H.R. 8839 makes no specific mention of the disadvantaged, a clientele of libraries too frequently overlooked. On the other hand, Sec. 3(b) (4) of H.R. 908 directs the Commission to encourage the development of programs to meet the special library and information needs of the disadvantaged. We agree that special mention should be made of this need. H.R. 8839 permits the Commission to provide "technical assistance" to agencies at all levels, including those of the private sector. We prefer H.R. 908's exclusion of this authority, because major technical assistance responsibilities are directly related to operating programs within the Federal Government and to existing National libraries. Therefore, we do not see the assignment of technical assistance authority to the Commission as necessary. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Gaydos? Mr. LANDGREBE. I have no questions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. The Chair would like to observe that it is close to a quarter past 11. We have two more distinguished witnesses. I would like to suggest, if it is agreeable to them, that they both come forward at this time, each of them give his statement as he wishes to do so and then members of the subcommittee can put questions to which both of them may wish to respond. The two witnesses next are Dr. Frederick Burkhardt, the president of the American Council of Learned Societies; and Dr. Herman Wells, the chancellor of Indiana University. We are very pleased, indeed, to have both of these distinguished American educators come before us today. The Chair is especially pleased to see here his old friend Chancellor Wells who gave such superb service to our Task Force on International Education in 1966. I would like to suggest, Dr. Burkhardt, that you go ahead and make a statement and then Chancellor Wells, if you would like to make your statement, we will be pleased to put questions to you both. STATEMENT OF FREDERICK BURKHARDT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES Dr. BURKHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think with your permission, I could probably save time by just having my written statement put into the record. I will simply excerpt and then comment on Mr. Venn's testimony, if I may. (Mr. Burkhardt's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF FREDERICK BURKHARDT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks to the Subcommittee for affording me the privilege and opportunity of testifying before it. My name is Frederick Burkhardt and I am President of the American Council of Learned Societies, a federation of thirty-three national learned societies in the humanities and social sciences. During 1967 and 1968 I had the honor to serve as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Commission on Libraries, appointed by President Johnson. The Advisory Commission was charged with making a comprehensive study of the role of libraries and their needs; it sought to appraise the programs and policies of public and private agencies concerned with the library and information needs of the nation and to develop recommendations for action by government and private institutions to ensure an effective national library system. The Report of this Commission, called "Library Services for the Nation's Needs: Toward Fulfillment of a National Policy," was submitted in July 1968 and was published in the Congressional Record on October 14, 1968. That Report provides clear evidence that we are faced with a great information crisis: a crisis caused on the one hand by the almost incredible growth in the amount of knowledge being discovered and published-what journalists have called the knowledge explosion-and on the other hand by the need for more advanced levels of information and knowledge by the citizens of this modern, complex technological civilization. It is the job of our libraries and other in formation services to make the accumulated knowledge available to the teachers and students in our schools and colleges and to those who need it in government and business. They are the vital link in the transfer of knowledge already acquired to those who must have it for solving the problems of the present and the future. Our Commission found problems of great magnitude in the knowledge transmission system of our country. There are large segments of our public that do not have access to even minimal library collections and services, and in communities with adequate facilities the libraries are burdened with increasingly heavy demands by users. Almost all of them are deficient in funds and manpower and hard put to keep their collections and services up to date. At every level of education there are serious deficiencies in library resources and services, and even at our best institutions the problems of collecting and cataloguing, of space and funding, are enormous. Technological innovations in the storage and retrieval of information hold great promise, but on the whole they have not yet been fully developed to solve the problems of bibliographical and physical access to the materials needed for instruction and research. Networks of knowledge on the local, state, and regional levels are still in a primitive stage and very expensive to develop and operate; standards that would make the diversity of systems compatible are lacking. In short, the library and information needs of the nation are so large and critical that a national effort will be needed-an effort that will have to come from both the private and public sectors, on the local, state, and federal levels. For this reason the National Advisory Commission on Libraries recommended to the President that it be declared national policy that the American people should be provided with library and information services adequate to their needs and that the federal government, in collaboration with state and local governments, should exercise leadership assuring the provision of such services. A national library policy requires that a national library program should be worked out. Such a program should, our Commission Report stated, have six broad and fundamental objectives: 1. To provide adequate library and information services for formal education at all levels. 2. To provide adequate library and information services for the public at large. 3. To provide materials to support research in all fields at all levels. 4. To provide adequate bibliographical access to the nation's research and information resources. 5. To provide adequate physical access to required materials or their texts throughout the nation. 6. To provide adequate trained personnel for the varied and changing demands of librarianship. "These are the six areas," our Commission said, "where current inadequacies exist, and future inadequacies are foreseen unless all participants in the management and use of information can look to coherent national planning and coordinated research and development." The Commission became convinced early in its work that a fundamental step in implementing such a national program would be the establishment of a continuing National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. In almost all of our hearings and in many of the studies made for us a high priority was given to the creation of such a federal planning body. The continuing Commission proposed by H.R. 8839 is a first, essential step in the provision of a coordinated national plan. What, specifically, would such a Commission do? In the first place, the proposed Commission would have to conduct studies and research that would provide accurate and current data on the library needs of the nation. Our Advisory Commission found that in almost every area of the library field, while there was clear evidence of large scale problems and needs, there was also a dearth of the hard facts needed for realistic planning. Second, the Commission would be charged with coordination of the diverse and extensive library and information programs of the various federal agencies. No one knows precisely how much money the federal government is now spending on these programs, and because each agency has its own mission and objectives both duplication and gaps in the overall effort are inevitable. Nothing resembling a consistent coordinated federal library program now exists. The proposed Commission would fill an important need by providing a central planning body for such a federal program, which would establish priorities, eliminate duplication, and make recommendations for filling the gaps and anticipating the needs of the future. Third, we need not only better data and a coordinated federal program for library support, we also need an agency to promote research and development activities which will improve and expand the national capability for information transmission and use. Although the realization of the dream of instant access to all information is still very remote indeed, there is a rich potential in current technology for the improvement of our information system. Research and development of software and hardware specifically designed for efficient library and information service are urgently needed. The National Commission could play an important part in the stimulation and support of such efforts. Fourth, the Commission and its staff should be in a position to provide both government and private agencies, institutions, and groups with advice with respect to the library and information needs of the nation. Finally, the proposed Commission should not only report each year to the President and Congress on its activities, but should be empowered to propose new legislation to meet the needs which it finds as a result of its studies and its planning activities. As H.R. 8839 makes clear, the new Commission should be a planning body, not an operating agency. It should not replace any of the present operational programs or have responsibility for any new ones. Nor should it take over the planning which each agency must do to carry out its specific mission. Rather its objective should be to see to it that the diverse programs become effective and integrated parts of a coordinated over-all plan. If it is to do this, the proposed Commission should not be subordinate or allied to any of the present agencies, but should be independent of them all and of service to them all. The Commission membership should include librarians and information specialists, but a majority of its members should be persons who can competently represent the user interests and needs of the whole society. In this connection I should say that the present bill, in its obvious intent to protect against dominance by specialists and special interests, perhaps goes too far when it states that "Not more than five members of the Commission shall be professional librarians or information specialists. . . ." This stipulation could be fulfilled by the appointment of one person or even zero representation. Since such members will be essential to an effective Commission I suggest that the phrase "Not more than" be striken from the text and that the number of librarians and information specialists be set specifically at five. The staff of the new Commission can be relatively small, but it must encompass experts in librarianship, education, the humanities, and the social and natural sciences. The modern library is far more than a collection of books and periodicals; the needs of its users range from recreation, through instruction, to research-and each of these needs requires materials and techniques specifically adapted to it. The National Commission must be competent to plan for the ghetto and suburb, for the scientist and the humanistic scholar-taking into account their different kinds of library needs. The staff of the Commission will be planning the library and information system of the future. To do this it will have to decide which specialized studies are required and contract for them. It will have to initiate research, evaluate present programs, and provide advice to institutions and groups with diverse and particularized needs. So its staff members will have to have a broad range of capability in regular service, with the power to augment their strength by enlisting ad hoc expert consultants for specific problems and programs. The level of funding ($500,000) proposed in the bill is approximately the same amount as the National Advisory Commission on Libraries actually used for its meetings, staff salaries, and the dozen or so studies it contracted for during its tenure. Based on this experience I think a good start could be made with the amount proposed for the first year of the new Commission's activities. I am sure that no one is under the illusion that the establishment of this Commission will in itself be a solution to the library and information problems of the nation. But it is a first step, and a necessary one. The National Advisory Commission considered it to be the most important single step that the federal government could take to demonstrate that it is national policy to respond to the country's library and information needs. It is a step that can lead to a national program for dealing with those needs and provide a coordinated, consistent plan for library support by the federal government. It is clear that |