For this reason, the Committee may want to give attention to the matching provisions of the Act. A strong case can be made, in our opinion, for amending the law to require matching of federal funds provided under Title I by state funds, instead of allowing the local match option now possible. Requiring state matching would serve to strengthen state programs of library support. The Committee may be interested to know that the following states provide no grants-in-aid to their local public libraries: Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wyoming. We believe that a requirement of state matching may prove persuasive in those states.

To allow sufficient time for states without aid programs to establish them, we propose that any state matching requirement be deferred in the legislation until two or perhaps three years after enactment. This would give the state legislatures time as well as an incentive to take action, and the state legislative action would also have the benefit of the facts and findings of the state conferences on library and information services.

We do not propose a state matching requirement for Title II of the LSCA dealing with construction projects. These are primarily of local significance and should receive strong local support. By the same token, however, we believe that a state matching requirement for Title III may well be justified. Currently, as you know, Title III has no matching provision. Title III programs of support for cooperative networks for the sharing of resources by school, public, academic and special libraries would seem to be particularly appropriate for state matching.

State administration

At present, there is no limit on the amount of LSCA funds the states can use for administrative purposes. A 1974 GAO report to Congress recommended that such a limitation be established as one way of helping to insure that the target groups (such as the handicapped, the bilingual, the disadvantaged) are served in accordance with the purposes of the Act. HEW, in appendix II of this report, concurs in the recommendation that such a limitation be established on administration. The Association also supports this, and suggests the Committee may want to consider establishing a limit of no more than 10 percent of a state's LSCA Title I funds that can be used for state administration and indirect costs.

HEW did not concur with another CAO recommendation that a limitation be placed also on statewide services. We heartily agree with HEW on this point, for we feel that a dollar or percentage limitation on statewide services would defeat the purposes of the Act in many cases. In rural states, particularlv, the most efficient type of library service may be that provided by the state library agency to many communities far too small to support their own library service. In New Mexico, for example, bookmobiles are run by the state agency to many sparsely settled areas that would otherwise have no access whatever to library service. In Vermont, the state library agency runs a very successful books-by-mail service, which provides library access to persons in rural sections of the state. Programs such as these are badly needed and would be disastrously curtailed if a limitation were to be placed on statewide services.

In considering a limit on the amount of Title I funds that can be retained at the state level for adminisration, therefore, we urge the Committee to make a distinction between administration and indirect costs on one hand and statewide services on the other. The limitation should be upon the former, most definitely not upon the latter.

Advance funding

[The American Library Association further proposes that the extension of the Library Services and Construction Act make explicit the provision for advance or forward funding contained in the General Education Provisions Act to emphasize the urgent need for timely funding of LSCA.] Ideally, the new congressional budget procedures will obviate the need for advance funding, but that has not been the experience thus far, because of the authority given to the Administration for proposing rescissions and deferrals.

Last year the states did not receive their allocations under the LSCA until April, or two months before the close of the fiscal year. This year states were not advised of their allocations until November, or four months after the start

3 "Federal Library Support Programs: Progress and Problems," GAO report to Congress. Dec. 30, 1974 (MWD-75-4).

of the fiscal year. As a result, services were curtailed, projects were interrupted, and plans for the most effective use of library dollars were necessarily made piecemeal.

To illustrate, we received reports from the following states, among others: Indiana-Delayed enactment of federal appropriations and impoundment or deferral of appropriated funds have had the following effects among others in Indiana: (a) a minimum of new projects have been funded; (b) even though there have been several requests for funds for bookmobile demonstrations in counties without service, these have had to be turned down due to the uncertainty of funds (c) funds budgeted for state institutional library services have remained at the previous year's level even though book and equipment costs have increased.

California-A project cannot be sustained when the federal fund flow is interrupted causing years of pre-planning to be wasted, staff redirected to other areas of need. When federal funds are withheld, even for a short period, the effect is disastrous in light of the percentage of public funds wasted because of the shut-down and start-up of a project.

New York-Projects are dropped or delayed. State planning is impossible. Staff is laid off, and those that remain are plagued with uncertainties. Chaos is created generally. We desperately need assurance of advance funding for the best and most effective use of federal funds.

Pennsylvania-Delayed funding seriously jeopardizes significant progress made throughout the state in such areas as statewide delivery services, automated cataloging systems, film services, and library development advisory services. Impoundment makes long-range planning impossible. It raises the expectations of the community and ultimately the library user-only to let them down which further erodes their confidence in government.

Iowa-Delayed appropriations and impoundment have created many problems in the administration of federal programs. Libraries lacking the resources to continue LSCA-assisted programs on their own budget prematurely, are forced to close what might have been a very successful service program. Delivery systems to the handicapped, aging, and isolated, suffer the greatest damage due to increased fuel costs, and the lack of stability in funding.

Wisconsin-Delayed availability of appropriations interferes most seriously with the joint state/local planning for LSCA projects. This is particularly characteristic for communities where the local share of project funding is difficult to obtain.

To avoid these problems we urge the Committee to include an advance funding authorization in LSCA.

Special needs of urban/metropoltan libraries

[The central city library systems of major metropolitan areas have special needs that should not be overlooked. Because they are older and larger, they have rich collections lacking in the smaller libraries on their periphery.] Indeed, the large urban library is typically at the center of a cooperative network of libraries where these have been developed. [In addition to serving residents of outlying areas through cooperation with their libraries, the center city libraries also serve directly many people who neither live nor pay taxes in the central city.]

Few if any of the large urban libraries continuously record the extent of this kind of service but many have made statistical studies from time to time. From these studies, we learn, for example, that 38 percent of the users of the Detroit Public Library were nonresidents. The corresponding figure for Baltimore is 20 percent and for San Francisco about 13 percent. We believe that these figures and others that will be presented to the Committee in the course of these hearings will buttress the case for continued Federal support for public library services, as well as the case for increased State support.

We have proposed that a imitation be placed on LSCA Title I funds retained at the state level for administration and indirect costs. This, we believe, will allow more of the Title I funds to go to metropolitan public libraries which are one of the Title I priorities. In addition, we have propose that LSCA be amended to require state appropriations to match the state's allocation under LSCA Titles I and III. Such a requirement will result in more realistic state support of state library agency services including those to public libraries, and increased state grants-in-aid which can be used in conjunction with LSCA funds to assist local libraries.

66-133 - 76 - 2

Some of our nation's greatest city libraries are facing severe crisis today, not only in New York City, but in other urban areas as well. The economic crisis has had severe impact on urban public libraries. Mayor Paul Jordan of Jersey City has been quoted as saying "We may become the first major city in the nation with no library system as a result of our money problems." The Brooklyn Public Library has been forced to develop a plan to pare down its branch service. Employees are being discharged and vacancies not filled. Similar problems are being faced by the libraries in San Franciso and Los Angeles, Chicago and Detorit, to name just a few.

Additional funding of LSCA Title I is urgently needed to help the great city libraries in this time of crisis. As the director of the Detroit Public Library, Mrs. Clara Jones, recently said: "America leads the world in library organization. The best-organized libraries are in this country. This is where the record of our civilization is kept and, fortunately, ours is not an elitist library tradition."

The American tradition of public libraries readily accessible to the people, is indeed a great tradition, an essential element of our nation's democratic heritage. It would be a tragedy, in our national bicentennial year, if major public libraries are allowed for lack of funds to deteriorate beyond repair. The taxpayers of Cleveland have recently voted an operating levy which significantly increases operating funds for the Cleveland Public Library. But in today's economic climate, increased local support for lilbraries in urban areas is rare. Additional funding for such libraries is needed from the states, from LSCA, and perhaps most important, from other federal programs designed to offset the effects of an emergency economic crisis such as we are facing in America today. III. THE ADMINISTRATION'S LIBRARY PROPOSALS

Library Partnership Act

In 1974, President Nixon proposed a new initiative for libraries—a Library Partnership Act, which would encourage exemplary and innovative developments in the provision of library and information services. Introduced during the 93rd Congress for discussion purposes by Sen. Jacob Javits (S. 3944), the bill saw no action and virtually no support last year, and has not been reintroduced this year although HEW again sent the draft to Congress in March 1975.

The goals of the proposed partnership act are similar in many ways to those of the existing library and information science demonstration program authorized by title II-B of the Higher Education Act. Both the partnership act and HEA II-B are discretionary, and both are focused on demonstrations to encourage exemplary and innovative developments in the provision of library and information services. Because of this similarity, the American Library Association has recommended to the House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education now considering HEA amendments, that these demonstration aspects of the Library Partnership Act be incorporated within HEA Title II-B.

We note also that the Library Partnership Act would authorize some interlibrary cooperative projects, similar to those authorized by Title III of LSCA. There is a major difference, however, in that decision-making occurs at the state/local level under LSCA, a state formula grant program, but the Administration's partnership proposal would return decision-making to Washington, at the discretion of the Commissioner of Education. We would like to note for the record our strong support for the state and local determination encouraged by LSCA Title III.

We agree with the Administration that interlibrary cooperative activities are worthy of federal support and encouragement, but we strongly disagree that this should be done by inaugurating a new program with all funding decisions retained at the federal level. The states are planning for their own intrastate and interstate library cooperative networks, with assistance from LSCA Title III. It simply makes no sense whatever to abandon this kind of state support for interlibrary cooperation and move instead to a more fragmented discretionary approach centered in the U.S. Office of Education.

It is our recommendation, therefore, that the Committee continue and increase the authorization for LSCA Title III, which we believe will serve far more successfully to advance the aim of strengthening interlibrary cooperation among all types of libraries.

General revenue sharing as a substitute for LSCA

Since 1973, when then-President Nixon first articulated a new federal library policy-that of terminating the Library Services and Construction Act-this philosophy has been repeated annually in the President's budget, first President Nixon's then President Ford's. Library service is essentially a state and local responsibility, these two Administrations have said, and "with the increasing availability of general revenue sharing funds, states and localities will be able to continue the most promising projects and programs formerly supported by federal categorical assistance."

In this connection, the U.S. Office of Education informed the Senate Appropriations Committee last spring that some $82 million in general revenue sharing had been devoted to library purposes in fiscal year 1974 alone. These figures were provided by the U.S. Office of Revenue Sharing.

We cannot dispute such statistics, nor are we able to confirm them with our own surveys. We do, however, question their meaning, for we know that a great gap exists between what is reported on the Office of Revenue Sharing's data collection forms and what eventually happens at the state or local level. We recently learned from the California State Library, for example, that one county library is being required to return all of its general revenue sharing ($400,000) with the statement that it was a loan. Two city libraries have had to return portions of theirs ($285,000 and $116,000).

The greater problem with respect to general revenue sharing as a source of library support, however, is that local governmental units tend to budget expenditures from commingled resources, that is, combining their resources from all sources (property taxes, sales taxes, fines and service charges, licenses and permits, general revenue sharing, etc.), they then make allocations to a variety of budget expenditure categories, one of which may be libraries.

In response to the Administrations' contention that general revenue sharing support for libraries indicates LSCA is outmoded and no longer needed, we would refer them to a recent report to Congress from the Comptroller General' which notes that the interchangeable nature of money can nullify the meaning of a report which relates specific expenditures to a specific source of revenue, such as revenue sharing.

Many of the state library administrative agencies have kept statistics on the amount of revenue sharing libraries throughout the state have received. Some libraries have benefited from the program. The Tulsa City/County Library System, which I direct, has indeed been fortunate in this regard. Many more libraries, however, have not benefited from the program. Increasingly we are finding that libraries receiving general revenue sharing are in fact receiving no more than they previously received from state or local sources. In many cases, general revenue sharing is not stimulating new services to unserved groups such as the handicapped or bilingual-both priorities of LSCA. It is instead providing the kind of general operating support that had in prior years been provided by the local government.

In short, although general revenue sharing has benefited some libraries both in establishing new programs and in the construction of new facilities, there is great disparity in library development fostered by this federal program. Libraries in some communities are strengthened by general revenue sharing, but libraries in many others are totally ignored by general revenue sharing. The Library Services and Construction Act is a coordinated program for statewide and interstate development of library service. It is a valuable program that must be continued.

CONCLUSION

We believe that extension of the Library Services and Construction Act is the most realistic way at this time to assist the states and localities in extending library services and facilities to the unserved, to promote interlibrary cooperation and improved service to all Americans. We look forward to obtaining a much more accurate picture of the nation's library needs and resources as a result of the White House Conference on Library and Information Services. Thank you for your attentive interest, and for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the American Library Association. I will be glad to provide further information or answer any questions you might have.

4 "Revenue Sharing: An Opportunity for Improved Public Awareness of State and Local Government Operations," Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States, Sept. 9, 1975 (GAO No. GGD-76-2).

SURVEY OF STATE LIBRARY AGENCIES ON LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION-PRELIMINARY REPORT

[The States report that approximately 226 library construction projects could be started by July 1, 1975 (col. 1); an additional 224 projects could be underway by Jan. 1, 1976 (col. 2); 293 more could start by July 1, 1976 (col. 3) if LSCA II is funded in fiscal year 1975. An additional 766 projects are needed over the next 2 to 3 years (col. 4)]

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HUMPHRY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LIBRARIES, NEW YORK STATE LIBRARIES, ALBANY, N.Y. Mr. HUMPHRY. My name is John Humphry. I am assistant commissioner for libraries, New York State Education Department, responsible for administration of the Library Services and Construction Act in New York State. I am also a past president of the Association of State Library Agencies, a division of the American Library Association. I am speaking in support of the extension of the Library Services and Construction Act.

On behalf of the library community of the Nation, the Association of State Library Agencies and the American Library Association, I wish to express deep appreciation to you and the other Members of