Lapas attēli

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 i 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 judged from my own observations, there was good reason for you to have used the conditional tense in your discussion of your bill, because to paraphrase an old story told around here, “There is minimum high enthusiasm for it in this place." Also, I should be less than candid if I did not tell you I felt a majority of the members of the subcommittee and of the committee probably share that point of view on a rather bipartisan basis.

66-133 0.76 - 5

That being disposed of, let me put some questions to you.

What percent of support of local public libraries in the United States today comes from State money, from local money, and from Federal money?

Mr. MATTHEIS. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether we have that specific breakdown. Five percent, which was reported earlier as the Federal, is accurate.

Mr. Hays. Mr. Chairman, we don't have it broken down today precisely by State and local, but collectively, State and local resources provide 95 percent of the support for public library systems in the United States, and Federal support is 5 percent.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Do you mean to tell me that you cannot give this subcommittee a specific answer to the question I put in respect of the percentage of State moneys and the percentage of local moneys that go to support public libraries in this country?

Mr. Hays. The percentage of State money is approximately 7 to 8 percent, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. So that 7 to 8 percent will come from State funds, 5 percent from Federal funds and the rest from local funds.

Can you tell me what the pattern was, let us say 5 years ago, to pick a not unreasonable date, so that we can have some idea what the trend us?

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, the trend line. I believe, since 1956 shows an increasing support at the State level. As indicated in the testimony, 23 States provided approximately $5 million in 1956. Today, it is 38 States with over 100 million.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Of course, that is not really responsive to my question in terms of percentages. Real numbers are helpful, but not as clarifying as percentages would be in giving us an idea of the patterns of support.

Mr. Hays. The percentage of State support has grown slowly, Mr. Chairman. Basically, the support for public library systems have been provided both percentagewise and in precise dollar amounts by the local govrenmental levels.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me put a more specific question to you. Let's stick to percentage figures here because, as I say, real numbers don't really illuminate very much.

You have testified here in opposition to Federal funds for construction. What percentage of support for construction and renovation comes today from State moneys, from local moneys, and from Federal moneys?

Mr. Hays. Our information indicates that the Federal support is approximately 5 percent. The State provides very little support for construction and the majority of the support, approximately 95 percent, comes from the local level.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me ask you about revenue-sharing money. Here if you want to use real dollars it may be the only way you can give me an intelligent reply.

How much revenue-sharing money is being expended, in the most recent year, for construction and renovation, dividing that into State revenue-sharing money and local revenue-sharing money!

Mr. Hays. The latest information we have, Mr. Chairman, is the year July 1973 to June 1974, which is the latest information we have in the Treasury Department. Their report indicates that a total of $82 million was spent for library support.

Breaking that down, the report indicated that for capital expenditures, which would be for construction and renovation, it was $36.2 million, which was 44 percent of that, and operation and maintenance was $46 million, which was 56 percent of the amount.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Is that State and local revenue sharing moneys combined ?

Mr. Hays. Yes. But, the State contribution in terms of revenue sharing, Mr. Chairman, has been very minimal. Most of this is local revenue sharing where libraries are listed as one of the eight priority items.

Mr. BRADEMAS. In light of the information you have given us, I find it very difficult to understand how you can make these sweeping assertions. I take it they are rhetorical assertions not meant to be taken straightforwardly—that we can count on State and local units of government to support libraries generally, that we can count on State and local units of government to support library construction, and that we can count on State and local utilization of their revenuesharing funds to support construction.

Ljust don't think the record bears you out. If you play back your responses to me, I think you will find evidence for my conclusion. Somebody has to say the emperor has no clothes. When you come in here and say you can count on revenue sharing, or, Mr. Mattheis, to look at your statement, you can count on increased support and redirection of priorities by the States, there is no evidence for that proposition in light of the testimony you have given us.

Indeed, if you listen to the witnesses who preceded you, you hear a common theme running through the testimony of nearly every witness, and summarized in the testimony of Mr. Trezza, speaking for the National Commission, that we have to think of ways to develop incentives to get more State money into these programs.

So, when you come before the subcommittee and say we really don't need Federal support for libraries because the States will help meet the job, I put it to you, there is no evidence, in fact, for that assertion. It is political rhetoric.

Tell me if you have some evidence to persuade me that that conclusion is wrong.

Mr. MATTHEIS. I think, Mr. Chairman, the evidence is there with regard to new State legislation and additional resources in the States and their State programs. They have increased over the recent years. I think the evidence there is clear.

Mr. BRADEMAS. It is not what we were told.
Mr. MATTHEIS. We are talking about revenue sharing here.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am talking about revenue sharing. I am talking about State tax dollars. I am talking about local tax dollars.

Mr. MATTHEIS. I think the record is clear, Mr. Chairman, that in State legislation and in State dollars with regard to library programs they have increased over the years.

Nr. BRADEMAS. There is no question about that. That is like saving there are more people in the United States today than when George Washington was President. What does that prove?

Mr. MATTHEIS. It simply proves that States have increased their support and that is what the statement says. With regard to revenue sharing, we have not in the statement broken that down. I think Mr. Hays has. The State record there is certainly not altogether good, but locals have picked up and distributed a sizable amount of the funds available to them for library services. That is all we are saying.

Mr. Hastings. I don't know the exact number, but some States are devoting 100 percent of their State portion of revenue sharing toward education.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That doesn't answer the question of public libraries.

Mr. Hastings. My point is that they have no funds left over to derote specifically to libraries, although this is not to say that some of those funds may not indeed be going to library services.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The point I am making, which should be obvious on the record, is that I do not think you can be taken seriously in your suggestion that there is justification for doing away with a number of these LSCA programs on the ground that the States are moving in the direction of providing adequate funds for these programs. The evidence is just not there.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, there is another part to our position. We also address the propriety of the Federal participation.

Mr. BRADEMIS. I understand that.

Mr. WHEELER. There is the possibility for the State and localities to shoulder the responsibility, which we think is more rightfully seated there.

What we have said here is that the appropriate Federal role would be one to support innovative library practices in order to improve library operations.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand that. That is Ronald Reagan's attitude toward the world and Gerald Ford's as well. You just don't think the Federal Government has any business providing support for these matters. That is a perfectly legitimate position which will be overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats and Republicans in the Congress of the United States, I have little doubt.

Mr. Hays. I believe there is some additional information which would add to Mr. Mattheis' testimony. Not only have the States increased their support over the 19-year history of LSCA, but also in fiscal years 1973 and 1974, when we were going through the process of recissions and deferrals, et cetera, we found many States provided financial support for libraries when it looked like the Federal dollars were not coming. Thirteen States provided funds which contained "payback” provisions if LSCA funds were released.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You have heard my comment that I agree with you in respect of the proposition that States onght to do more for libraries.

What comment, Mr. Mattheis, would you have on some of the suggestions made for giving incentive to the States in this connection?

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »