Mr. MEEDS. As I understand, the main difference in the two bills is the consolidation of all of these titles in both bills but in one all funds would be consolidated under a State plan type of operation and in the other bill, the Senate bill, the funds would be consolidated only insofar as they would be in three different kinds of earmarked categories; one would be services, one construction, and then cooperative and prisons and others would be in the third section.

Would either one or both of you as State librarians, would you like to be able to have some certainty as to what type of building program you could forecast for your State in terms of funding? Miss MILLER. Yes; it would be of great value to all the States in the country.

Mr. MEEDS. Would that be possible under a 1-year State plan as required by the Ayres bill, where all the titles are consolidated in a lump sum?

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think it would create more difficulties in trying to protect what we can do over, say, a 5-year period.

Some of these plans take 2 or 3 years to bring to fruition and we at the State level are encouraging and working with these people.

For example, we have a first-class advisory committee that reviews all of these plans minutely, meets with the library boards of trustees, the librarian, architect, mayor, and other officials. This process has resulted in buildings of enormously greater quality than would otherwise be possible, but there has to be a continuum if you are going to have really effective results.

Mr. MEEDS. So, either one or both of you would like to know that Congress not only has a commitment to libraries but to specific aspects of libraries, construction, for instance, and services, and so on. Miss MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I certainly feel that way.

Mr. MEEDS. Fine.

I think that is all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.

We appreciate your testimony, Miss Miller, and Mr. McDonough. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Thank you.

Miss MILLER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I had asked if our distinguished Idaho colleague was here because I know he would like to make an observation with respect to the testimony of a citizen of his State.

I call on one of the ablest members of our subcommittee, Mr. Hansen. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Let me apologize for my late arrival, which was occasioned by a conflict in committee meetings. Both of the subcommittees of which I am a member were meeting and both of them, it turns out, had among the list of witnesses very dear friends. Hence, my tardy arrival.

I would like to say what a great personal pleasure it is to join in extending a very warm welcome to Helen Miller, who is not only an old and dear friend of mine and very valued friend, but a very distinguished librarian for the State of Idaho.

Idaho has benefited tremendously from the very capable leadership that she has brought to this position. We are very proud to have Helen Miller back here speaking for the librarians in these committee hearings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. May I, in passing, Mr. Chairman, remind the Congressman that my wife was born in Jerome, Idaho.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You may.

Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Lamkin, Associate Commissioner for Libraries and Educational Technology, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Mr. Lamkin, this is your first appearance before the subcommittee. We are pleased indeed to welcome you here. We wish you well in your new position of responsibility.

STATEMENT OF BURTON E. LAMKIN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR LIBRARIES AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ALBERT L. ALFORD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION; AND RAY M. FRY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LIBRARY PROGRAMS

Mr. LAMKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am pleased to come before you today to recommend extension and improvement of the Library Services and Construction Act.

Since the act was first passed in 1956, it has significantly expanded services in public libraries throughout the country, supported new library construction, and promoted interlibrary cooperative networks. The Library Services and Construction Act has also provided library services in a whole range of State institutions (such as penal institutions and hospitals), and special materials and services for the physically handicapped (including the visually handicapped), unable to use ordinary library materials. I am attaching as an appendix to this testimony some detail on the record of the Library Services and Construction Act.

In each of these five areas, the LSCA has provided important support for the States, enabling them to make library services more readily available to millions of Americans. Now, we believe the time is right to provide the States with more flexible authority which would reduce their administrative burdens and permit them to build on their experience under the act by assuming greater discretion in allocating funds among these areas according to their own priorities of need. Therefore, we are proposing H.R. 16365, to extend the Library Services and construction Act through 1976, to consolidate the five existing categorical programs into a single program which would simplify and strengthen Federal library assistance, and to encourage more systematic long-range planning to meet State needs for library services. We also recommend that the act be amended to place greater emphasis on the provision of library services to the disadvantaged, as a inatter of national priority.

Problems of administration.

At best, the existing act represents a piecemeal approach to strengthening library services, which involves a great deal of redtape and discourages comprehensive planning. Each of the five categorical pro

grams has its own authorization; each requires submission of its own State plan; three require the establishment of a separate advisory council.

To benefit fully from the range of assistance available under LSCA, a State must therefore submit five different State plans for Federal approval, keep separate accounts for the five different allocations, and appoint and support three different advisory councils. Obviously, this arrangement imposes unnecessary and duplicative administrative burdens and costs on State and local library personnel.

Less obviously, it discourages States from using the available Federal library assistance to focus on their highest priorities of need (which in any given State are unlikely to bear a direct relationship to the proportionate amount of funds appropriated by Congress to the five different categorical programs). The States have had enough years of experience with the operation of the act to be able to exert greater responsibility and discretion as to their priorities of need.

To reshape the Library Services and Construction Act into a more responsive vehicle for Federal library assistance to the States and localities, therefore, we urge enactment of H.R. 16365. The bill would fuse the five existing programs into a single, comprehensive library services and construction program. It would streamline State plan requirements. In addition, it would encourage greater attention to the special needs of the disadvantaged for libraries and library services. H.R. 16365 would authorize a single State plan covering the purposes of all five current programs. States could use funds, then, for extending public library services to areas without those services or with inadequate services, constructing public library facilities, supporting interlibrary cooperation, promoting State institutional library services, and providing library services to the physically handicapped. Funds could also be used for planning for any of these. States could elect to appoint an advisory council directed to advise the State on its overall policies in this area; this would replace the three narrower councils now required.

As in the existing program, States would be responsible for allocating funds within the State. However, they would be free to make their own judgments as to what proportion of their allocation should be spent for each of the purposes.

A number of States have already developed long-range programs for the development of total library services, but the LSCA as currently constituted cannot be used effectively to tackle priority areas under these programs. The consolidation would achieve an LSCA program sensitive to the varying needs of 50 States as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas. States will be able to concentrate funds on the kinds of services for which they have the most critical need.

In consolidating five programs into one, the number of State plans which must be submitted and approved will shrink correspondingly. A State need submit but one plan. State agency staffs have been spending an unnecessarily large proportion of time preparing documents for Federal program; H.R. 16365 will help to ensure that State officials administering LSCA programs will be able to spend more time assessing library needs and administering programs and less time writing plans to submit to the Office of Education.

We have added a new requirement that States develop a long-range program for carrying out the purposes of LSCA. This document would not be submitted for approval but it would be developed in consultation with the Office of Education. The arrangement will ensure that each State is thinking ahead about library needs and priorities for meeting them, without adding to the volume of material that must be formally reviewed and approved in Washington.

Finally, H.R. 16365 provides that a new emphasis be placed on library services for the disadvantaged, by specifying that, in the approval of projects for extending and improving public library services (including construction), priority must be given to projects serving areas with high concentrations of low-income families. Library services to such areas have traditionally lagged far behind services to wealthier areas, and such services that have been offered have too frequently overlooked the special needs of the disadvantaged. The LSCA has already begun to encourage States and localities to improve services to the disadvantaged; the new priority contained in H.R. 16365 will add new momentum to the trend.

In conclusion, we urge that the committee take action to reshape our library services and construction program while extending the LSCA. The program has brought new and improved library services to millions of Americans. It has encouraged States and localities to assess their library needs and their capabilities to meet those needs. These accomplishments have allowed the library services and construction program to outlive the need for five narrow categories of library programs. Now that States have begun to assess their total library needs and weigh their relative importance, Federal library assistance ought to assist, not hinder them in setting priorities and allocating funds accordingly. The bill before you is designed to do so, and I urge your support of it.

Last year, President Nixon, in submitting legislation for improving the administration of grant-in-aid programs, stated:

In the administration of Federal programs, one of the principal needs today is to improve the delivery systems; to ensure that the intended services actually reach the intended recipients, and that they do so in an efficient, economical and effective manner.

We believe that the changes we are suggesting would be an important step in reaching that goal of more effective and efficient programs. I would be glad to answer questions now. I know there has been particular interest on this bill's progress in the Senate, and I am prepared to answer questions on the provisions of the bill reported out of subcommittee in the Senate. Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these improvements in the Library Services and Construction Act.

(The appendix referred to follows:)

APPENDIX

THE LSCA RECORD

From fiscal year 1957 to fiscal year 1969, Title I committed $200 million in Federal resources to extending public library services to areas without adequate services. Forty-five million books and other library materials have been supplied to libraries through Title I funds, plus the required State and local matching funds; an estimated 85 million people have benefitted from the new or improved

services provided by the program. "Outreach" projects supported by Title I are bringing imaginative library services to places and people never reached by traditional libraries: to disadvantaged urban ghetto residents; to migrant workers; to residents of isolated areas. Sometimes, reaching these people has meant the creation of promising new kinds of flexible library services: the storefront library, new uses of the bookmobile, and so on. With a boost from Title I, public libraries are growing more responsive to community needs. Especially among poor and minority populations inadequately served by public libraries, there is a growing awareness that libraries must reach out to people where they are, and that their materials and services must meet community needs.

Since 1965, Title II has provided approximately $140 million for new library construction, matched with $343 million in State and local funds. These funds have provided assistance for about 1,565 new, enlarged and remodeled library facilities within reach of over 50 million people, some for the first time.

Title III of the LSCA provides for the creation and operation of library networks, for sharing resources among all kinds of libraries within localities, regions, States, and among States. Through Title III, libraries of all kinds (such as school, public, and academic libraries and information centers) are coordinat ing and sharing their resources to offer better services to the spécial clientele of each. After an initial planning year and 2 full years of operation, the program has aided in the creation of 45 interlibrary networks and centers serving 904 libraries. Thirty-five Title III-supported telecommunications systems now connect 800 libraries; and 14 technical processing centers, available to 300 libraries, have been established. During Title III's first 3 years, $4,563,000 has been obligated to States for the program.

One project funded under the program in FY 1969 brought together Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming in the development of a Regional Information Network Group (RING). Another example of last year's activities was a project continuing and expanding the services of North Dakota's Northwest Library Federation with headquarters in Minot. An LSCA Title II construction project, it bolsters the resources of small libraries in an 11-county area, through inservice training, consultant services, and centralized processing and cataloging. Other kinds of Title III undertakings included conferences and workshops on interlibrary cooperative activities and developing and/or updating computer-produced union catalogs of books, periodicals, etc. Title IV of LSCA contains two different programs. Part A authorizes the provision of library materials and services to patients, inmates, and residents of State-operated or substantially State-supported institutions; Part B encourages the provision of special materials and services to the physically handicapped (including the blind) who, because of their handicaps, cannot use ordinary library materials. The programs have separate authorizations and separate State plans. By the end of FY 1969, $4,189,000 in funds obligated under Title IV-A had brought library services to an estimated 300,000 people, in 500 State institutions. Of these, 400 were correctional institutions, 65 were State hospitals, and 20 were residential schools. Some States spread their allocations among all eligible institutions, for improving existing library collections and training library staff for specialized service. Other States chose to concentrate funds on fewer institutions, organizing new libraries and expanding services.

Beyond the expansion of library services and training of library staff, the program has produced three kinds of long-lasting accomplishments. During FY 1968, several States carried out surveys to assess the state of library services to their State institutions, finding most deplorable at best, nonexistent at worst. The required State advisory councils for Title IV-A have often proven invaluable, in interpreting the library needs of State institutions and in demonstrating to these States the need for State support for institutional library services. Finally, 20 States have added Title IV-A consultants to their State library agency staffs. In sum, then, perhaps the program's most important contribution has been to focus State attention on the desperate needs of libraries in State residential institutions.

An example of the program's impact is the Kings Park State Hospital in New York. Kings Park State Hospital received a title IV-A grant of $20,000 for each of 2 years, 1968 and 1969, to investigate the effects of intensive library service upon culturally deprived and emotionally disturbed patients.

As a result of the project, the hospital has added to the library staff, increased the library budget, and is planning a new library in a future rehabilitation building. The library is now a firstline department in the hospital and the librarian a vital member of the rehabilitation team.

IV

ar

ba