In fiscal 1970, only $7,807,000 was appropriated, which provided funds for 65 building projects throughout the country. However, 271 projects requiring $51,525,945 in Federal matching grants had originally been planned. The States represented on this subcommittee, alone, could have used $20,019,840 in Federal dollars. For your information, I have attached to my statement a summary of public library construction needs in fiscal 1970.

SPECIALIZED SERVICES

Idaho's service to residents of State institutions has been another service where we had to begin at the bottom. We only have seven fully State-supported institutions there are some advantages in having a low population. But it means that there often aren't enough residents to make full-time library staff feasible.

We have, with LSCA money, helped all the institutions to purchase books, employ staff, begin programs. Above all, we have tried to get the institutions' administrative staff to realize that the library can help in the treatment program. We are making headway slowly. The prison library, for example, now has a carpet on the floor and tables and

chairs.

But we still have no professional librarians in the institutions, and the bookstock is far from adequate.

Our service to the blind and handicapped is being purchased on contract from the Utah State Library in Salt Lake City. Now we are considering setting up this program in Idaho. It may cost more, but we believe that we can give a better service to our residents by having the materials and staff in Idaho.

SUMMARY

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do urge passage of the proposed LSCA, and that it be done by this Congress, this year.

In addition to opposing the outright consolidation in H.R. 16365 of all the programs currently authorized by the existing law, I also oppose the provision in that bill of a $200,000 basic allotment. That would be $85,000 less than we are currently eligible to receive. With increasing needs, this lower figure is totally unrealistic.

Furthermore, since any remainder is to be apportioned on the basis of population, a low $200,000 allotment would be detrimental to the smaller States, such as my own State of Idaho.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before the Select Subcommittee on Education, on behalf of libraries.

(The attachment accompanying the statement follows:)

A

Present position.-State Librarian, Idaho State Library, 615 Fulton Street, Boise, Idaho.

Previous experience.-Engineering Librarian, Univ. of Arkansas, 1941-43; Circulation Librarian, Springfield, Missouri Public Library, 1943-45; Army Librarian, Ft. George G. Meade, Maryland, 1945-46; Librarian, Cole County Library, Jefferson City, Missouri, 1947-49; Librarian, Jefferson City & Cole County Libraries, 1949-55; Air Force Librarian, USAF in Germany and England, 1955-58; Consultant, West Virginia Library Commission, 1959-61; State Librarian, Idaho State Library, 1962-date.

Professional activities.-Member, American Library Association Council, 1952-53, 1963-67, 1969-present; Chairman, American Library Association Committee on National Library Week, 1969-present; Secretary, American Association of State Libraries, 1962-63; Chairman, Library Administration Division Small Libraries Publications Committee, 1968-present; Second Vice President, American Library Trustee Association, 1965-66; President, Missouri Library Association, 1952-53; President, West Virginia Library Association Public Library Division, 1960-61; Member, Executive Board, Idaho Library Association, 1962-present; Member, Pacific Northwest Library Association.

Other activities.-President, Business & Professional Women's Club, Jefferson City, Missouri, 1951-52; Member, League of Women Voters, Boise Chapter; Member, Zonta International, Jefferson City and Charleston Chapters.

Education-A.B., Drury College, Springfield, Missouri, 1940; B.S. (Library Science), University of Denver, 1941; some graduate work at Wayne State University, University of West Virginia, and University of Washington School of Librarianship.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Miss Miller, and Mr. McDonough.

I take it that I do not misrepresent the position of State libraries if I say that you support an extension of the Library Services and Construction Act, that you do not wish to see the consolidation of construction programs with service programs.

Is that right on the part of both of you?

Miss MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You feel that the proposed percentage set aside for evaluation purposes is unwise; is that correct?

Miss MILLER. This is correct.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You believe that the $200,000 basic allotment in Mr. Ayres' bill to be too small a figure and that you would prefer maintaining the present figure.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Not going below that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I also ask if you are familiar with the bill which has been reported by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee which, I understand, is shortly to be considered on the floor of the Senate.

Miss MILLER. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Is it your position that you would prefer the passage of that bill which, as I have seen the full committee print of August 1970, is numbered S. 3318? Are you familiar with that committee print?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Is it my understanding that you would support the passage of this bill as reported by the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee?

Miss MILLER. Yes; it seems to have more elements that are satisfactory in it than H.R. 16365.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Could I ask you to spell out a little more clearly why you are opposed to the consolidation of the, I believe, five programs under the Library Services and Construction Act, consolidation which is represented in the bill, H.R. 16365 ?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I am not directly opposed to that, Mr. Chairman. As an administrator of these programs, I think they can be made to work in a number of different ways. If it is the desire of the administration, the Federal Government, to streamline the programs, we can make do with strong exception in the case of title II which, I think, really should be kept separate.

In all candor, I can live with the program as it is now being administered with definite amounts for these titles.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I might observe, because I may by my question not have fairly put the problem, but as I understand it, the Senate committee bill would consolidate the present library program in that it would bring together titles I and IV, that is to say, the services title, and the specialized State library services title under which there are included part A, State institutional library services, and part B, library services for the physically handicapped.

Mr. McDONOUGH. Yes.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Then there would be a separate title which would leave construction by itself. There would be a third title for interlibrary cooperation. While in the bill before this subcommittee at the moment all five of the programs which are contained in the existing four titles of the act would be consolidated into one program. I just want to make clear it is my understanding that the issue, at least the issue represented by these two particular bills, is not whether there is consolidation, whether there should be consolidation or not, for consolidation is provided for in both bills, but, rather, what programs are to be consolidated.

Miss MILLER. In comparing the two bills, I believe that the Senate provisions do come nearer meeting the needs of State agencies in administering the program in that those three programs that would be contained in title I of the Senate bill are services programs.

The construction title, title II, is a completely different type of program and interlibrary cooperation, title III, is different in that funds there are used to support library programs in many types of libraries, not just public libraries. But the combining of title I in the present act and the two programs under IV-A and IV-B, are services titles directly related to the users. Therefore, it seems logical to me to combine those.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

Mr. McDonough, do you have anything to add on that point?
Mr. MCDONOUGH. Just one small point.

I am concerned slightly that when you combine these very special services to institutions, blind and handicapped and package them along with general public library services, we further increase the element of competition for one sum of money that the States are asked to administer.

Some of this competition is healthy; some of it is very tough, subject to outside pressures, and it may provide problems for us. These are not insurmountable. I merely cite them to indicate that when you have earmarked funds it makes it a little easier in some instances. I am sure you understand that.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

Mr. Meeds.

Mr. MEEDS. Do you have statistics indicating what the contribution of all States has been in proportion to the Federal contribution in the different categories, for instance, in construction, in services, and then in the cooperative aspects?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Meeds, I don't have those. Mrs. Miller referred to them in her testimony. I am sure that the administration witnesses, Mr. Lamkin and colleagues, have that available for you, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask any of the witnesses if that information will be put in the record?

Does any witness intend to put that information in the record?

Miss MILLER. I am sure we can get it and have it put in the record. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proportion of State funds to Federal funds in the past 2 fiscal years be inserted for our information.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Without objection, that information will be inserted when it becomes available.

(The information referred to follows:)

Mr. MEEDS. Maybe just a horseback guess now:

Do you think the ratio is $5 to $1 for construction, $2 to $1? Mr. MCDONOUGH. In New Jersey, it was six or seven to one, local to Federal; $4.5 million as against $28.5 million, I think it is pretty good seeding.

Mr. MEEDS. As I understand it, when the Federal appropriation went down very dramatically you dropped from around 12 to 13 libraries in construction to two.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. So that, what we really lost then in terms of that cut was approximately 14 times as much as it might appear just from the Federal funding.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Yes, sir.

This construction program, Congressman, produced the greatest spurt in public library building since the days of Andrew Carnegie. The grants Andrew Carnegie made in New Jersey resulted in 30 new library buildings in the early years of this century. There were not too many built in that interim period until this construction title was added to the LSA. There were a few built as WPA projects but they were few and far between.