Forward funding, safeguards against substituting Federal funds for state funds, and the strengthening of LSCA, Title III (Interlibrary Cooperation) are among the nine recommendations in the resolution.

RESOLUTION ON LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT

Whereas, the Federal Library Services and Construction Act has been instrumental in extension and improvement of library services to millions of Americans in the fifty states and territories, and

Whereas, the Federal funds provided to the states and territories under this Act have encouraged the development of library services directed toward the daily information, education, research, cultural, and recreational needs of people, and

Whereas, these funds have enabled libraries to cooperate with both public and volunteer agencies in meeting the needs of disadvantaged people, persons in institutions, handicapped persons, and those of limited English-speaking ability, and to develop appropriate outreach services needed in both cities and rural areas, and

Whereas, the incentive of these Federal funds has assisted thousands of communities to secure from public and private sources the funds needed to construct library facilties adequate for today's library services, and

Whereas, interlibrary cooperation programs assisted by the Federal Library Services and Construction Act are encouraging and facilitating the sharing of resources among public, school, university, and special libraries and information centers to meet the increasingly sophisticated needs of readers, and

Whereas, the testimony of library users as well as that of librarians, library administrators, and trustees in regional meetings in 1973, 1974, and 1975 clearly indicate to the NCLIS the need for improvement in library service and for expansion of library systems and network development, and

Whereas, the 1970 amendments (Public Law 91-600) extended the Act through June 30, 1976, and

Whereas, the need for library and informaton services is accelerating: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) be revised and extended for three years on the following basis:

(a) Revise the Act to ensure that Federal funds will not be substituted for state funds nor used as a substitute for adequate state support for the function of the State Library Agency. Provide a limitation on expenditures by State Library Agencies of 10 percent for administrative purposes.

(b) LSCA, Title I, funds be matched by state appropriations only.

(c) Statutory time limitation on the use of LSCA funds for the state administration of LSCA ensuring that more LSCA funds are distributed to eligible libraries.

(d) Assurance of an equitable distribution of LSCA, Title I, funds to support the strengthening of urban public libraries.

(c) Administration and fiscal provisions of LSCA to be structured to strengthen, stimulate, and require state and local support.

(f) Merger of Title III of LSCA and the multitype Library Partnership Act providing for the establishment of a local-state-Federal partnership program for the purpose of encouraging and sustaining an adequate system of libraries and for the further development of networks which extend and expand the use of the resources of school, public, academic, and special libraries and information centers.

(g) Revise LSCA to include provisions for forward funding to help resolve the recurring problems of uncertainty, late allocations, and other administrative problems which interfere with effective planning at the national, state, and local level; and be it further

Resolved, That the funding level for fiscal year 1977 for LSCA, Title I, be at a level not less than the FY 1976 appropriation: Title II at a minimum level of $9 million; Title III, including the Library Partnership Act, at a minimum level of $15 million: Title IV, Older American Services, at a minimum level of $2 million; and be it further

NOTE. Adopted by the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science at its meeting on Sept. 26, 1975, in Los Angeles, Calif.

Resolved, That there be a re-examination of the authorized level of funding and the national priorities specified in LSCA and of the requirements for effective long-range planning. The views expressed are those of the NCLS and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Executive or Legislative Branches of the Government.

Mr. BRADEMAS. May I say, as one who is concerned with libraries on this committee and also as a member of the House Administration Committee, where I sit on the Subcommittee on Libraries and Memorials. I am very pleased that the question of the Madison Library has been resolved in the manner in which it was.

That is not to say that I don't think we here in the House need more space, because I think we do, but that is another subject for another day.

Thank you, Mr. Trezza.

Now we are very pleased to hear from Duane Mattheis, Executive Deputy Commissioner of Education, accompanied by Dick W. Hays, Acting Director of the Office of Libraries and Learning Resources; Mr. Robert Klassen, Chief of the Program Development and Assistance Staff of the Office of Libraries and Learning Resources; Mr. Richard A. Hastings, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Education; and Mr. Robert Wheeler, Deputy Commissioner for the Bureau of School Systems, of the Department of HEW.

We are very pleased to have all of you.

Our friend on the subcommittee and associate, Mr. Quie, could not be here this morning. I know he would want me to extend a particular word of welcome to you, sir.

PANEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, WASHINGTON, D.C.: DUANE J. MATTHEIS, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; DICK W. HAYS, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LIBRARIES AND LEARNING RESOURCES; ROBERT KLASSEN, CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE STAFF, OFFICE OF LIBRARIES AND LEARNING RESOURCES; RICHARD A. HASTINGS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION, EDUCATION; AND ROBERT WHEELER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR BUREAU OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Mr. MATTHEIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before your subcommittee this morning to discuss the administration's proposal for a new direction for Federal assistance to libraries. Our proposal, the Library Partnership Act, was transmitted on March 6 and is similar to S. 3944, which was introduced by Senator Javits during the 93d Congress. When the proposal was originally submitted, it was intended in part to replace the Library Services and Construction Act, which expires in fiscal year 1976 and is automatically extended for 1 year by the General Education Provisions Act, and to provide the basis for future Federal support for library service programs administered by the Office of Education.

The Administration is currently considering the Federal library program as part of the 1977 budget process. Any new position would be

reflected in the President's fiscal year 1977 budget submittal. Our discussion today should be considered with that in mind.

The purpose of the original Library Services Act, enacted in 1956 and expanded in 1964 as the LSCA, was to provide Federal assistance to stimulate the States in the expansion and improvement of public library services in rural areas. In 1956, only 23 States had programs for statewide public library development. Expenditures under these programs amounted to $5 million. Rural areas suffered the most, with large segments of the population having little or no access to libraries. Twenty-six million rural residents were without any library seryices, and an additional 50 million citizens lived in areas with extremely inadequate service; 319 rural counties had no library services available within their confines.

Today, there are 38 States with grant-in-aid programs. Appropriations exceed $100 million; 95 percent of the population has access to some form of public library services. In addition, Federal general revenue sharing funds used for public libraries by State and local governments have increased greatly since the program was initiated. with $82.3 million being used for this purpose during fiscal year 1974. In fiscal year 1975 the library resources appropriation of $207.8 million included not only support for public library services and interlibrary cooperative activities under the LSCA, but also support for the purchase of school and academic library materials and instructional equipment; library career training; and library de:nonstrations under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Higher Education Act (HEA) authorities. Some of these efforts would also be combined under the proposed legislation. Since the evidence indicates that the basic purpose of the public library legislation to stimulate the growth of library services has been achieved, we believe it is inappropriate for the Federal Government to continue a role of basic support for operation and construction. This is the responsibility of State and local governments. The proposed legislation was based on the premise that the Federal Government has a joint role with States and localities to encourage, support, and provide incentive capital for comprehensive informational services in interinstitutional cooperative patterns and to demonstrate these, as well as other related arrangements of new information delivery systems for libraries of all types.

Based on the evaluation study done under contract for the Office of Education by Systems Development Corp. entitled "The Public Library and Federal Policy" (1973), we concluded that the Nation's libraries involved in cooperative projects have successfully proven the value of cooperative local, State, and regional projects and networks in increasing services and dollar effectiveness. Let me give you a few examples, which are illustrative of this success:

LSCA title III and HEA title II-B have been instrumental in generating initial support for the Ohio College Library Center, a regional processing network, providing more than 500 academic and public libraries in 40 States access to cataloging data through 800 computer terminals. The data base includes 1.6 million records of titles from which libraries can produce their records and, in turn, save thousands of dollars in processing costs at the State and local

levels. A number of States have joined the center's processing networks with LSCA title III funds.

Library coordination has been nurtured by State library agencies, local planners, and LSCA title III by developing operative regional library councils. For example, the Indiana General Assembly has enacted a Library Services Authority to encourage libraries of all types to coordinate their activities for the more efficient use of resources.

Because of the LSCA incentive capital, interlibrary cooperative activities have changed over the years in emphasis and focus from single-purpose projects involving more than one type of library to projects requiring all types of libraries within a geographic area to cooperatively assess needs, jointly develop plans and programs to meet needs, and jointly evaluate their institutional efforts. This requires a commitment from each type of library represented to see itself in relation to the total community and to the world of library and information services.

We, therefore, proposed that the Federal Government take a larger role in demonstrating improved methods of planning for the use of and processing resources and improving the delivery of information services and encouraging these cooperative patterns. The LPA "seed" money would also have offered incentives to local, State, and regional groups to work together to provide more accessible and comprehensive informational services to greater numbers of people.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, let me outline the basic provisions of the LPA. The purpose of the bill was to provide a program of discretionary demonstration grants and contracts designed to encourage and support innovation in libraries and information services through the development and demonstration of cooperative activities involving the sharing of resources and provision of services within communities and among jurisdictions, with special emphasis on services which benefit handicapped, institutionalized, or economically disadvantaged groups. For such purposes, we requested an authorization of $20 million for each of the fiscal years 1976 through 1978. Under this proposal, State and local library agencies and other nonprofit agencies, organizations, and institutions involved in the administration, provision, support, or coordination of library or other information services would have been eligible to receive financial assistance.

Activities would have focused on demonstrating innovative methods for providing library services, including services to the handicapped, the institutionalized, and the economically disadvantaged; designing and demonstrating exemplary interlibrary cooperative services and activities; and demonstrating the feasibility of the practical application of these informational and educational services for the library community. Evaluation efforts would also have been authorized. Applications would have had to provide assurance that State library administrative agencies, and in the case of interstate projects, Governors of the affected States, had been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed activity.

Among the criteria to be weighed in the approval of an application would have been the degree to which the program or project to be funded could be replicated in the Nation, and consideration of the source and adequacy of non-Federal funds which would be available

to sustain the project when Federal assistance ends. Essential to the goals of the act was the concept that projects could be funded from 1 to 3 years. Support for more than 1 year of a demonstration project would have been authorized only if the Secretary determined that the purposes of the act would thereby be more effectively carried out. Federal funding for the first year of any project would have covered up to 100 percent of the costs, but would have been limited to 70 percent of costs in the second year and 40 percent in the third.

The most obvious question which arises is what effect LPA would have on activities now supported by other Federal library authorities. The formula grant program in title I of the LSCA, which provides assistance for operating expenses, would be phased out. However, the concept of aiding high priority target groups would be retained. Since 1973, no funds have been recommended or appropriated for title II of the LSCA. LPA would also not provide funds for these purposes since Federal support has provided seed funding for over 2,000 public library construction and renovation projects since 1965, while State and local agencies have heavily supported these activities. Support for any continuing need for construction may be provided through general revenue sharing funds at the local levels and through increased support and redirection of priorities by the States. We do not believe it is appropriate for the Federal Government to assume the responsibility for providing library facilities.

Although the funding mechanism shifts from a formula grant program to discretionary grants, the LPA retains the title III purpose of encouraging State, interstate, and/or regional cooperative networks of libraries in order to provide a systematic and effective coordination of resources of school, public, academic, and special libraries in a more cost-effective and more economical service pattern. Also, the LPA can fund the type of library and information models developed under the current authority of HEA title II-B. This title, research and demonstration program, is not as viable a device under which to accomplish our current objectives.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe library services to the people of particular localities are most appropriately supported through State and local governments. The program proposed in the bill represented a Federal role limited to the encouragement of innovative developments in the delivery of library and information services through resource sharing and other cooperative techniques, with special attention to the needs of the disadvantaged. Accordingly, the LPA, while authorizing activities that can be carried on under existing law, would have focused temporary project grant support on innovative library practices, and would have led the Federal Government out of categorical service support it now has with respect to library programs.

Let me say again that the administration is now considering the Federal library program in the 1977 budget process. We commend the subcommittee for holding this hearing, and we hope that a beneficial dialog on the future direction of Federal library programs will result. My colleagues and I would be most pleased to respond to questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mattheis.

As you have heard from the testimony of the spokesmen for the library community who appeared before you and as you will have

66-133 O-76-5