In Wisconsin, 15 of the 19 institutions which have participated in LSCA title IV-A activity now have librarians on their staffs. Eleven are full time, four are part time. Three more institutions have hired librarians on a consultant basis to direct work done by other staff members. The full-time librarian of one institution initiated a library project in a small neighboring institution on a volunteer basis, and volunteers have contributed valuable services. The State reports with 3 years of funding, book and periodical collections have been greatly improved, and experimentation in audiovisual techniques has progressed rapidly. Additional library space has been acquired in several cases.

Title IV-B is aiding States and localities to begin to serve an estimated 2 million physically handicapped, many of them blind or partially blind, who cannot use ordinary library materials and who would benefit from special materials, equipment, and services. It is estimated that 70,000 handicapped people have already been reached by IV-B programs. States have used a total of $2,610,000 in title IV-B funds in a variety of ways: adding staff to regional libraries for the handicapped, building public awareness of the special library needs of the handicapped, identifying potential users and informing them of available materials and services, and expanding library resources in general for the handicapped. These resources include braille materials, books and periodicals in large print, records, tapes, "talking book" machines, and other specialized equipment such as book holders, page turners, prism glasses, etc.

Since one main obstacle to providing special library services to the handicapped is their "invisibility" in their communities, several States have invested program funds in locating the handicapped and registering them for services. In Louisiana, for example, the State library hired part-time consultants in a "case finding project." Operating out of seven urban public libraries, they enlisted members of professions, agencies and organizations serving the handicapped in a drive to identify and contact potential recipients of Title IV-B services.

In summary, the Library Services and Construction Act has led to a number of significant accomplishments. It has provided library services for the first time to many people never before reached by a library, such as the poor, the isolated, the institutionalized, the handicapped. It has focused State and local attention on the library needs of people and institutions inadequately served. The LSCA has encouraged the commitment of State and local resources to improving and extending the provision of libraries to serve all citizens.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Lamkin, for your most thoughtful statement.

I would like to ask you two or three questions about the bill, H.R. 16365, about your statement regarding it.

On page 1 of your statement you say that you believe the time is now right for giving the States more flexible authority and to do so by consolidating the various library programs under the act.

Yet, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence, unless some is brought before our subcommittee, of a widespread demand on the part of the States for the kind of consolidation represented by H.R. 16365.

Moreover, there is even, as you have just heard, opposition to consolidation of the construction programs with some of the service programs; opposition on the part of representatives of State libraries. Where does this proposal come from?

I am trying to understand who is pushing for it in the States.

Mr. LAMKIN. Mr. Chairman, this statement is based primarily on the objectives of the administration in trying to give more responsibility to the States in administering Federal programs.

Now, the objections that I believe were presented by State librarians, perhaps were stated without full awareness of the flexibility that the new bill would introduce to the States.

From what I can observe, the States would be given greater flexibility in having Federal and State moneys directed at their priorities.

I think this would aid those States which are lagging behind in the development of library services. It would give them more freedom in concentrating funds on construction, for example. On the other hand, States that are fairly progressive in their construction program, for example, may need to spend more of their resources on interlibrary cooperation. I think the total objective of the new bill would be to give the States that freedom and allow them to determine the priorities rather than having those priorities determined by us for them.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that observation but do not find myself enormously enlightened by it because it always impresses me when there is no great evidence of pressure or support for a change on the part of those who are allegedly to benefit from that change.

In other words, if the States were pounding at the doors of this subcommittee saying, "Please give us more authority. Please give us more flexibility. Please give us more freedom," I think I would be impressed by that.

On the contrary, your position, as I read it, is that you wish to give them that which they do not, to any degree, seek, and I find my suspicions always raised when I see that kind of phenomenon. It would seem to me quite obvious that if we were to consolidate the construction and service programs, the political pressure at the local level for building a public library at every wide spot in the road with very scarce funds would be immense and that under the guise of providing more freedom and flexibility this could represent a really terribly damaging blow to the cause of library service in the decade of the 1970's.

This approach, I fear, and I will be glad to be persuaded that I am mistaken, would take us a century back. It would represent under the guise of progress a retreat.

What do you say to that comment?

Mr. LAMKIN. The consolidation does reflect the interest of the administration in terms of reducing the number of programs. At one time, however, we had considered a separate title for construction, and we would not be opposed to separating construction from services. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am very pleased to hear that.

So, let me turn to just two other matters, if I may, Mr. Lamkin. One of the points to which an earlier witness made reference in respect to the bill before us is the proposal to lower the basic allotment to $200,000 from the $285,000.

Now, the evidence before us, I am sure you will not disagree, is that there is still very great need for Federal funds for support of both library construction and services under the act.

What, then, is the rationale for lowering the basic allotment in this fashion when the program is already so modest?

Mr. LAMKIN. Mr. Chairman, we certainly recognize the need for a basic allotment in order to give States and others that are affected by the Federal funds a minimum basic operational grant. But we have attempted to emphasize the per capita allocation.

We felt that some States require less in terms of base than other States and that the present allocation would be an adequate formula for distributing funds and the per capita would add funds to meet the distribution of the population.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You indicated that you find that some States have less need than other States with respect to the basic allotment.

I have not heard any State coming in and saying, "No; we don't need this $285,000 basic allotment. We certainly wish you would drop it to $200,000."

Where is the evidence for that attitude?

Mr. LAMKIN. Part of the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the large concentrations of people are not adequately supported with Federal funds. The per capita distribution of the funds would be aimed at solving this. The larger the base is, the less funds would be available for allotment according to population size.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Would it not be more advisable to appropriate more funds with the same basic allotment and try to resolve the problem that way rather than reducing the basic allotment? That is like the administration proposal to appropriate no money for title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; it is very bad to get those school children reading books.

Now, I don't think we need to spend any longer on that particular proposition. I am sure on reflection there will be at least some who will appreciate that there is another point of view.

I have just one other question.

Mr. McDonough made the point in his statement that he was opposed to section 201 of the bill which would, as you know, provide for 1 percent set-aside appropriations for program evaluation.

As I understand his position, he had two or three reasons for opposing that. One, we already lack adequate appropriations for library services and construction and, therefore, to impose a set-aside on the appropriations of 1 percent would be to erode the supply of

moneys.

Second, that he thinks it is unwise to have the program evaluation done within the granting agency.

Third, that there now exists a new agency which, in its nature, is eminently suited to the kind of evaluation which I am sure all of us feel would be desirable; namely, the newly formed National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.

What comment do you have on that criticism?

Mr. LAMKIN. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that the money set aside for evaluation is essential. We feel that in order to adminster a program of this magnitude, there certainly needs to be some built-in means of evaluating its effectiveness in order that future plans can be based on that evaluation.

Now, I agree that many times it is desirable that other groups provide some type of stimulation and evaluation, too, in order to get cross sections of thought. But I do feel that if one were to look at normal business practices one would also attempt to have built an evaluation portion in a program.

We feel without this set-aside in the legislation, very few funds will be available for evaluation. So, we do feel this is a fairly critical point and we would certainly encourage its inclusion.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you see anything wrong with the Commission undertaking this kind of evaluation?

50-933-70- -6

Mr. LAMKIN. The present program for libraries is more or less, a granting program, administered by the Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology in the Office of Education.

The new Commission that has been formed will certainly work with the new Bureau in deciding future plans for libraries. At the present time, there are many unknowns in terms of the relationships between these two organizations.

Until the Commission is formed, until the Commission meets, until we have an opportunity to meet with the Commission and develop some type of uniform strategy for reviewing the overall problems in the field. I think it would be totally unwise to plan on their taking action in this way at this time.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hansen!

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Let me join the chairman in expressing our appreciation for your attendance and participation here.

I would like to pursue, if I might, some aspects of the consolidation feature of the bill.

It would help if you could outline perhaps in a little more detail some of the problems that are now encountered, both at the State level and at the Office of Education level. by reason of the provision for fre separate plans,

I am thinking in terms of the personnel that may be required for administration and other difficulties that you believe could be eliminated or reduced if the consolidation features of this bill are approved and implemented.

Mr. LAMKIN. Thank you. Mr. Hansen.

In terms of the consolidation, the great benefits that we can see would be, for one, to reduce the number of State plans that would need to be submitted to the Office of Education for approval. Presently, the legislation requires that five different plans be submitted. Under the new bi dy te plan would have to be submitted for approval. So, this redores by four the number of plans that must be approved by the Inloeain, are aware of the enormous amount of redtape plans and in gerring them approved. I have no way De number of man hours that are involved, but in our in the stray division has in the neighborhood of 27 people ThePas The States have in the neighborhood of 500 people developing

I

s that reducing the number of plans that must be the annual updating would be an enormous burremoved from the States.

me the proposed legislation is again designed to provide the * Sexbodity so that they can direct their resources to those problems vids they flently as most critical, whether it is the metroE lowtrae family area or whether it is for the physically

MY. HANSEN. Do you see any danger of the thing that the chairman ma de reference and that is the sort of deemphasizing of certain important parts of the program as a result of this sort of greater flexi

bility at the State level which may not be entirely responsive to the needs as they exist but may be responsive to the political realities and the pressures that may influence the decision on how the funds are allocated?

Mr. LAMKIN. I guess there is always some danger of that happening. I think the experience that we have encountered with the States has been good and we do feel that they can accept this increased responsibility without some of those problems.

We do have certain guidelines which would help to counteract that problem. In addition, if the evaluation funds are kept in, these will provide a means of continuing to monitor the effectiveness by which the program is administered.

Now, I do not in any way feel that the consolidation we are urging reduces the emphasis on library programs by the administration. Instead, I believe it strengthens these programs. The administration has indicated very strong support for libraries. I think this is indicated by the establishment of the new bureau in the Office of Education, as well as the support for the establishment of the new Commission on Libraries and Information Science. So, I would say that I would expect in the years to come an increased emphasis on library programs by the administration.

Mr. HANSEN. Let me ask if the step at which the Office of Education approves the State plan and would approve the consolidated single State plan would provide an opportunity for a review and a determination that the plan is genuinely responsive to the needs as they exist in the States? In other words, is this step kind of a protection against the very thing that I think many of us are somewhat apprehensive of?

Mr. LAMKIN. The review process does provides for that; yes.
Mr. HANSEN. One final question.

You indicated that you were up to date on developments in the similar legislation in the Senate which, I understand, has emerged in some. what different form.

It might be helpful if you could just bring us up to date on the status of the bill in the Senate at the moment.

Mr. LAMKIN. I will ask Mr. Alford to begin the comment on this, please.

Mr. HANSEN. Including any differences in the two bills.

Mr. ALFORD. I might indicate that my understanding is that the Senate bill is due to come out on the floor shortly for action on the Senate side.

The Senate bill which we have been discussing at earlier points in the testimony this morning has some basic differences with the administration proposal. The two essential differences are in the degree of consolidation.

In the administration bill, we have one title including both services and construction.

The Senate bill has three titles, one which includes all the service functions except interlibrary cooperation; a second title which includes construction; and a third title which covers the interlibrary cooperation.