jectives the Academies and the Council channel participation in international research programs; cooperate in the planning of national and international meetings, conferences, and symposia; sponsor a large number of scientific and technical communication programs and projects; and support a broad publications program.

Another alternative is the establishment of an agency within the federal government with broad executive authority, and perhaps even an extensive budget, to which responsibility for the supervision and regulation of the scientific and technical information system would be assigned, a concept which has been proposed and extensively discussed under the designation of a "capping agency." (See Carter et al., Ref. 37.) We do not consider it advisable at this time to create a new federal agency or to empower an existing one with the responsibility to supervise and regulate the national aggregate of scientific and technical communication activities. It is doubtful that such a course would produce gains in either effectiveness or economy commensurate with the losses contingent upon reduced monitoring and control of input to its communication systems by the scientific and technical community. Additionally, much of the initiative and ingenuity contributed by private organizations to the solution of information problems might be stifled if all major ventures in response to emerging needs and opportunities had to pass through the filter of a single government agency. It was just such concern with assuring the involvement of and interaction with the scientific and technical community which, on OST-NSF initiative, led to the creation of SATCOM itself and its location in the NAS-NAE structure. (See Activities of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, Report for 1965 and 1966, Ref. 62.)

D. ROLE OF THE COMMISSION IN THE TWO ACADEMIES

A multiplicity of information-exchange activities offering numerous opportunities for mutual assistance have already been undertaken by the Academies. Their varied and extensive responsibilities in this area provide a further reason for the proposed location of the Commission. Each of the Divisions of the National Research Council is deeply involved in the dissemination of scientific and technical information in its field, through formal reports and as part of the informal communication network. Additionally, almost all of them conduct one or more activities specifically aimed at improvements in scientific and technical communication. The Division of Biology and Agriculture, for example, is engaged in the preparation of a roster of agricultural specialists with foreign-area experience and in staffing a Council on Biological Science Information. The latter has responsibility for recommending steps toward a more coherent informationtransfer network among its disciplines. The Division of Behavioral Sciences sponsors a Committee on Information in the Behavioral Sciences, which recently reported on information needs in this area and the technology for satisfying them. This Committee emphasized that coordinating mechanisms are essential in the development and maintenance of a decentralized national information capability and also recommended the establishment of a coordinating mechanism similar to SATCOM within the Academies, with broad disciplinary representation from the behavioral sciences and the responsibility for fostering cooperation and coordination in this area (see Communication Systems and Resources in the Behavioral Sciences, Ref. 42). Since 1947, there has been a committee in the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, currently known as the Committee on Chemical Information. This Committee deals with technical problems in the storage, retrieval, and use of chemical information and has conducted studies on chemical codes, chemical notations systems, and nonconventional methods of handling chemical structures employed in the United States and foreign countries; on the rationale for their use; and on their effectiveness. The Highway Research Board of the Division of Engineering operates an automated information service that covers not only the technical report literature in this field but maintains a file of short reports on work in progress, thereby fulfilling the practitioner's need for information on "who is doing what and where." These various activities provide but a few examples of the nature and scope of the Academies' involvement in scientific and technical communication. See Ref. 135, Scientific Information Activities of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, for further details.)

Additionally, the Office of the Foreign Secretary, through its responsibility for organizing the bodies that coordinate U.S. participation in international programs

of scientific cooperation, has developed a substantial stake in the information activities pertaining to such programs. Such activities include the publication of special media for dissemination, the assembly of all documents generated by such programs, and the supervision of data-center operation and coordination.

Within this steadily growing web of diverse information activities, the proposed Commission can be especially effective. It could assist in defining the nature and scope of new communication activities that would be appropriate for Academy sponsorship as well as developing a coherent pattern of Academy participation in the field of scientific and technical communication. In this context, it should be alert to opportunities for new projects in scientific and technical communication and recommend appropriate points of attachment where special interests and capabilities exist.

Mr. JOHN BRADEMAS,

WHEELER BASIN REGIONAL LIBRARY,

Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Education,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Decatur, Ala., March 28, 1969.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BRADEMAS: I should like to thank you for your letter advising me of the Bill introduced by you on March 12, 1969, to establish a National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

It is my belief that such a Commission would be of immeasurable benefit in the advancement of Libraries throughout the U.S. This Commission, if composed of people at the "grass root" level who know personally the needs, would be in a better position to make the wisest utilization of all the nation's library and information resources. It is my sincere hope that President Nixon make such appointments.

Education has received wider recognition and support, and I realize this importance; however, education is attained through books and if there are not supportive libraries, the learning process suffers.

The training of qualified librarians is an essential element to the depth and scope of a realistic, futuristic plan of elevating education at all levels. In reality, the Library is the one continuing source of education in a community from the pre-school child to the senior citizen.

We are grateful for your assistance in our library development and wish to take this opportunity to thank you.

Sincerely yours,

NANCY R. AGNEW, Director.

ALABAMA PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE,
Montgomery, Ala., March 20, 1969.

Mr. JOHN BRADEMAS,

Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Education,

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BRADEMAS: Thank you very much for your letter of March 12th with the enclosure of the proposed bill to establish a National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

It is my opinion that the enactment of this bill will serve an excellent purpose as outlined in it's provisions. I have felt the need of such legislation for some time. I feel that the professionals as well as those of us who have been associated with them as Trustees at various levels must feel as I do.

I have no particular suggestions about the wording of the proposed bill as it is along the lines of my own thinking. I would like to inquire, however, as to the intent of the amount proposed for the first fiscal year. My copy of the bill seems to have a typographical error.

Libraries and their potential service to all the people are of continued interest to me. I have served on the executive board of the Alabama Public Library Service since 1960 and as chairman of that board since 1964. It has also been my privilege to have served as Chairman of the Trustee's section of the Southeastern Library Association for two years. I have attended virtually all of the national meetings of the American Library Association since 1960 and most of it's mid-winter meetings since that date; the latter because of membership on a national committee of the trustee's division. I am, presently, a member

of the Trustee's National Legislative Liaison committee and co-ordinator for the Southeastern States. These opportunities have given me an insight as to the needs as outlined in your proposed bill.

I plan to send copies of this letter to members of the Alabama delegation in the house and senate, many of whom are personal friends, and request their support of this legislation.

Thank you, again, for your courtesy.
Most cordially,

JEROME LEVY, Chairman.

MONTGOMERY, ALA., March 20, 1969.

Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BRADEMAS: I have your letter of 12 March with the copy of the bill to create a permanent National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. I commend you for sponsoring this project which I believe will help to advance library service to all citizens.

I'm sure librarians and allied professionals will strongly support your efforts and hereby pledge my own support.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have just received your letter of March 12, advising me that you and other members of the House of Representatives have introduced a bill to create a permanent National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

I am responding to your letter for two reasons: (1) to thank you and congratulate you on the action you have taken and, (2) because of my earlier service with a subcommittee on the President's National Advisory Commission on Libraries, to call your attention to a man whose past record and service entitle him to serious consideration for the first Chairmanship of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, once your bill has been enacted into law.

That man is former Alabama Congressman Carl Elliott who was a member of the President's National Advisory Commission on Libraries and, as such, Chairman of the Commission's Committee on Public Hearings.

I am sure you are familiar with Mr. Elliott's great and abiding interest in education, including libraries. Unless I am mistaken, he held the position you now hold as Chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on Education. During his sixteen years in Congress he earned the respect of all people interested in the welfare and progress of education in the Nation-no better example of his sincere devotion could be cited than the fact that he and Senator Lister Hill were cosponsors of the first National Defense Education Act, more than a decade ago. As Chairman of the Committee on Public Hearings of the President's National Advisory Commission on Libraries, Mr. Elliott conducted hearings in many sections of the Nation, including one in Anchorage, Alaska. His contribution to the Commission was tremendous. Indeed, in the absence of Chairman Douglas Knight (who was ill during a large part of the time) Mr. Elliott actually did more than any other person to solidify the Commission and press the work forward to completion. The final report of the Commission reflects many of Mr. Elliott's accomplishments.

As for myself, I served as Consultant to the Committee on Hearings of the President's Commission. And, as the University of Alabama's representative to the Association of Research Libraries. I read a paper on the Commission's work (copy attached) at its convention in Kansas City last June 22.

On behalf of myself and thousands of librarians in the United States I congratulate you for introducing the bill to create a permanent National Commission on Libraries and Information Science and ask that, in your deliberations, you and your colleagues acknowledge the invaluable service Mr. Elliott has rendered American libraries.

In my judgment no man in the Nation is better qualified for the Chairmanship of the National Commission (once your bill is enacted into law) and I respectfully urge you to use your influence toward that end.

Sincerely yours,

W. STANLEY HOOLE,
University Librarian.

ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

MINUTES OF THE 72ND MEETING, KANSAS CITY, MO., JUNE 22, 1968, ANDREW J. EATON,

PRESIDING

Mr. HOOLE. My appearance on this panel is based primarily on the fact that I served as consultant to the Subcommittee on Public Hearings of the President's National Advisory Commission on Libraries from August, 1967, to February, 1968. As you know, this Commission was composed of twenty distinguished citizens, including Douglas M. Knight, President of Duke University, as Chairman, and Verner W. Clapp, Herman H. Fussler, and Emerson Greenaway from the library world. Melville J. Ruggles, now program Officer of the Council on Library Resources, was the first executive director of the Commission.

President Johnson directed the Commission, “. . . to appraise the role and adequacy of our libraries, now and in the future, as sources for scholarly research, as centers for the distribution of knowledge, and as links in our nation's rapidly evolving communications networks." The President also asked the Commission, "... to evaluate policies, programs, and practices of public agencies and private organizations . . . and to recommend actions which might be taken by public and private groups to ensure an effective, efficient library system for the nation." While the Washington office contracted for studies on numerous phases of librarianship in America (such as school libraries in the United States, extralibrary information services, library statistics, public library trends, the economics of librarianship, etc.), the Subcommittee on Public Hearings, chaired by Mrs. Merlin M. Moore of Arkansas and former Congressman, Carl Elliott, co-author of the National Defense Education Act and a long-time friend of American librarians, conducted a series of hearings which began in St. Louis, Missouri, on April 12 and ended in Tucson, Arizona on October 27. Between these dates hearings were held in Tampa, Florida; Great Falls, Montana; Portland, Oregon; Anchorage and Nome, Alaska; Bismarck, North Dakota; Lubbock, Texas; Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Pikesville, Kentucky.

All together in these eleven public hearings, 319 respondents, representing every walk of life, accounted for 3,638 transcript pages of testimony, or nearly ten million words. Of these 319 witnesses, forty-six (14 per cent) represented twenty-eight institutions of higher learning, including universities, senior colleges, and junior or community colleges.

Needless to say, no facet of the library profession went unnoticed. A content analysis of the hearings reveals that twenty-nine different topics were frequently and widely discussed: five under "Objectives for Overcoming Current Inadequacies"; five under "Recommendations for Achieving Objectives"; seven under the broad heading of "Problems"; and twelve under "Means of Attacking Problems."

As far as university libraries are particularly concerned, the remarks of the forty-six respondents generally followed a wearisome and often repetitious pattern, centered about these major points:

1. A good library is the heart of a good university;

2. The rapid growth of graduate study and faculty research places an increasingly heavy burden on the university library;

3. The university library must modernize or perish, and modernization includes state, regional, and national cooperation;

4. Computerization, including information retrieval, will largely determine the welfare of the library of the future;

5. Cooperative acquisitions programs, regional resource storage centers, and centralized cataloging are absolute necessities of the future; and

6. The shortage of librarians is crucial, suggesting the need for more and more federal support for (a) scholarships, (b) material resources, (c) physical plants, and (d) more library schools with improved, updated curriculums and teachers who are eager and willing to innovate rather than imitate.

The Commission is now putting the finishing touches on its final Report which will be submitted to the President within a month. In addition, the Commission is also preparing a supplementary volume based on the materials gathered during the last two years. The latter, which will be published in the fall, will contain a chapter on libraries and the university by Dr. Knight, who is also general editor of the volume.

I have not seen the manuscript of the Report, but my familiarity with the public hearings, plus my knowledge of the personal opinions of some of the Commission members, lead me to believe that in it the university library, as such, will receive light treatment. Rather, focus will be centered on research libraries in general, including university libraries. Specifically, the central idea in the Report is that all research libraries, large and small, somehow fall short of fulfilling their complete mission and thus need help of all kinds-more space, more personnel, more equipment (to effect automation), more materials, and more money from both public and private sources. If they do not get this help, the library as a sanctioned social institution in our society will eventually be doomed. In summary, throughout the nation the Subcommittee on Public Hearings found the following major viewpoints more frequently expressed:

1. The need for greater strengthening of America's public libraries in order to make them centers of learning in fact, instead of in name;

2. The need for a permanent national commission on libraries to look after the welfare and progress of all types of libraries;

3. The conversion of the Library of Congress into a truly national library of the United States;

4. The full acceptance of the power and prestige of the U.S. Office of Education in the development of national library services;

5. The undergirding of state library agencies in order that they may properly function as the focal point for coordination of all public library activity both upward to the federal level and downward to the urban and rural levels in each state in the Union; and

6. The need for more and better educated professional librarians, broadly discussed under the general and over-riding topic of "Manpower Shortage." One final conclusion should be mentioned. The role of all libraries in the nation (school, college, university, public, and special) must inevitably change with the changing times-or perish. And this change, among other things, suggests consid erable soul-searching on the part of librarians, a soul-searching that will eventually lead to perceptive reappraisals of our profession and in all probability significant redirections of our day-by-day efforts.

Hon. JOHN BRADEMAS,

Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Education,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

TUCSON PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Tucson, Ariz., March 17, 1969.

DEAR MR. BRADEMAS: Please be congratulated for having taken the lead in the effort to create a permanent National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

I have read the text of the proposed bill and have found no basis for disapproval or for suggesting improvements.

Being strongly persuaded that the coordination of our libraries and information centers is of national interest, I would wish to assure you that we are interested in giving you whatever assistance you may require, to the extent that we are able to provide such.

Yours sincerely,

FRANK VAN ZANTEN, Director.