I am greatly interested in the priorities being established by educational groups and groups interested in education this year. Apparently there is no concern over the cut in funds across the board and the small request for one very small program.

Would you have any comments on this?

Mrs. SRYGLEY. I would just like to say, Madam Chairman, traditionally librarians are considered instructional personnel and they must be certified as teachers.

It seems a logical thing that under this teacher educational fellowship program school librarians should be one of the significant types of positions that would be funded, particularly in view of this national crisis in shortage of library personnel, which we have just discussed, this would be extremely important.

I don't believe that I have the knowledge to comment too much on what you have just said about appropriations, although this is somewhat surprising to me, I think I may say, and very interesting.

Mrs. GREEN. In terms of facilities under title I, the undergraduate facilities of the Higher Education Facilities Act, this year we have a request of only 54 percent of the authorized funds for fiscal year 1968. The request for fiscal year 1968 is $63,000,000 less than the actual appropriation for last fiscal year.

I have not received any protest over this up to this point. Does this mean the librarians and people in education feel we have reached the saturation point on construction and we no longer need construction for library facilities at the university level?

Miss KRETTEK. We are testifying vigorously on the need for full funding for college construction for the whole program.

Mr. GELFAND. In case of the Higher Education Facilities Act, I think one of the difficulties is a certain amount of matching is called for. I think many of our small institutions are simply incapable of meeting that in the time allowed under this new act. This is unfortunate but it really is, I think, a practical matter.

Well, it stymies us. We wanted to apply for a special-purpose grant in my college under the college resources provisions of title II of the Higher Education Act and we are so far extended financially that we simply could not find another $35,000 that would qualify us to ask for three times that amount then in the special-purpose grant.

The situation, of course, is quite different with respect to requesting money in aid of buiding, construction, because we run here into the

millions.

Even a small college library buiding of let us say 50,000 square feet of space is going to cost you a million or more to put up. First you have to have the matching money yourself before going out to ask for additional funds.

Then to say we can expect the Federal Government to pay all the money, perhaps that is unreasonable. We have to find more sources at home in order to take full advantage of the Federal sources.

Mrs. GREEN. Are you saying the $387 million is sufficient for fiscal 1968? Is this the thrust of your argument?

Mr. GELFAND. I would hate to see the appropriation reduced below the authorization for fiscal year 1968, and the money ought still to be available to encourage institutions to go out and find their own matching funds, but I am not in a position to comment in specific terms.

Mrs. SRYGLEY. Madam Chairman, it would be hard to believe more adequate funding was not necessary in view of the burgeoning enrollment in these institutions. In my State, for instance, how many new institutions do wo have?

I think one of the problems is the matching provision in terms of how this is used. I can speak specifically at Florida State University we need very badly a building to house our library school.

We in the library school are presently occupying one floor of our university library which is needed for this other purpose we are talking about, serving increasing numbers of students. It is matching provisions that has on us the first floor of the library.

Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie.

Mr. QUIE. No questions.

Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Burton.
Mr. BURTON. No questions.

Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch.

Mr. ESCH. No questions.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much for being with us today.

Mrs. SRYGLEY. Thank you.

Mr. GELFAND. Thank you.

Miss KRETTEK. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. GREEN. We appreciate your testimony.

Mrs. GREEN. Our next witness is Dr. William S. Dix, librarian from Princeton University.

Dr. Dix, on behalf of the committee, welcome and we are anxious to hear your comments.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM S. DIX, LIBRARIAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, AND DONALD F. CAMERON, DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES

Dr. Dix. I have with me this morning the librarian emeritus of Rutgers who has come out of retirement to help us with the library of research as director, Mr. Donald Cameron.

I think I will use the limited time you have if I concentrate on one part of the proposed legislation. I hope you and members of the committee will understand that we are in complete support of the testimony delivered by our library colleagues from the American Library Association and I might add also I have just read the testimony given by President Gross on behalf of the American Council on Education.

We are very impressed by the comments he had to make. These things all hang together in a definite way and I think there is no question of the points he made.

One point in particular-I have no instruction from my association. on this but personally I am inclined to think removal of the 3-percent ceiling rate on loans under title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act would be a mistake at this point as proposed in the legislation but I have no special competence on this point.

Let me then move particularly into part C, title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and some suggested minor changes. I hope you will permit me to begin by expressing the thanks of the Association of Research Libraries for the courtesy and the understanding with

which you and the other members of your committee heard our testimony on March 10, 1965.

The result was the addition of part C to title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965. I said in my original testimony that it would probably take about 3 years before the effect of this legislation would be fully apparent in the increased speed and economy with which the libraries of the country cataloged and organized for use the flood of new books from all over the world.

It had been my first intention to report to you in about a year but it gives me particular pleasure to report today, only about 9 months after the first appropriations were made available, that the impact of the legislation is already beginning to be felt and felt strongly.

The Library of Congress has moved with speed and imagination to set the program in operation. Ninety-one of the larger libraries are participating and amplifying the book selection machinery of the Library of Congress by reporting all books which they are acquiring for which cataloging copy is not available at the time the books are ordered.

Thus the Library of Congress is assured of getting the books which are important for American teaching and research, and the program is fitted to the real needs of libraries.

Furthermore, the Library of Congress has established offices in many of the major book-producing countries of the world and more important, in a number of areas from which book procurement is difficult.

The offices in the developed countries have established close working relationships with the book trade and national bibliographic centers in order that in implementing the II-C program, full advantage may be taken of all cataloging work done abroad.

In the less developed areas these offices are essential to procurement of the books themselves because there is often no well-developed machinery for publication and distribution as we know it. Without a representative in the area we cannot even find out what is being published.

In preparation for this testimony we asked a number of major college and university libraries to let us know whether they were able vet to see any effect of title II, part C, upon their own operations. The replies were so enthusiastic that they surprised even us, optimistic as we had been about the potential benefits. Let me read you a few excerpts from these letters:

University of Pennsylvania (reading):

Title II-C provides the support for one of the most promising cooperative endeavors in the history of research library development in this country-After just the few months that this massive and complex program has been operational, we are beginning to feel its effects here at Pennsylvania ***

Cornell University (reading):

If all aspects of salaries, space, benefits, and the administration of this personnel were included, the total savings to this library in dollars would undoubtedly be in the range of $15,000 to $18,000 *

Duke University (reading) :

The facts are, however, that because of what the library of Congress has been able to do in this first year of the program, we shall catalog with the same number of catalogers 5,000 more volumes than last year, and a substantially larger

percentage of the total items cataloged have been handled by non-professional help. These non-professional people, incidentally, given Library of Congress cards, can catalog three to four times as many books a year as a professional cataloger without Library of Congress cards. The 5,000 additional volumes we are adding this year if the books had come to us without Library of Congress cards, would have required four professional catalogers who would have cost us at least $28,000. When one begins to multiply this kind of savings by the number of libraries that will be affected, the significance of Title II-C to American research libraries can be appreciated.

University of Michigan (reading):

Although Title II-C has been in operation only a short time, there has already been an increase of over 20,000 titles cataloged by LC from May 1966, through February 1967, over the same period for the previous year, as demonstrated by the catalog cards received by our library. *** Moreover, because of the high level of competence at which original cataloging must be performed, with corresponding higher salary levels, the use of an LC card reduces the cost by considerably more than fifty percent.

University of Chicago (reading):

The benefits of this program rest not just in greatly improved utilization of this country's limited specialized manpower, but absolute benefits that can frequently not be secured in any other way, for example, in the cataloging of material in very difficult foreign languages where local capability simply does not exist.

Dartmouth College (reading):

Although conversion to LC classification is partially responsible we have been able to reduce our general monograph catalogers from seven to two and to use the five professional positions for more efficient catalog department organization or to accomplish cataloging that was formerly going into arrearage

University of California (reading):

We have admired the speed and precision with which the Library of Congress has instituted this new program, to a point where already we see a fifty percent increase in the availability to us of Library of Congress printed cards *

University of Washington (reading):

The Head of our Catalog Division estimates that, while before Title II-C catalog information was available for thirty to thirty five percent of such acquisitions now LC cards are available for approximately fifty percent and it is expected that this percentage will rise even more

University of North Carolina (reading) :

If the savings realized on only title II-C country titles is projected over a one year period, the savings will amount to $19,848.00. If the title II-C program were expanded to the point where world wide coverage was provided and copy made available for all foreign books purchased by this library, this figure would increase to approximately $59,500.00, a considerable savings to this library *

May I remind you, Madam Chairman, this result has been achieved even without full funding. We urgently hope that the Congress will appropriate for fiscal year 1967 the full $7.7 million authorized by the

act.

The full sum is essential for the extension of the program to other critical areas of the world with the consequent increase of available catalog copy and the further reduction of wasteful duplicated effort. We in the libraries need this help to get more books more rapidly to the people who need them.

I think it is appropriate for me to say just a few words about the international effect of the program for none of us when we proposed

the program, had clearly foreseen quite the extent of its effect abroad, a valuable byproduct of the central program which you will remember we discussed in terms of savings which individual U.S. libraries might obtain, primarily.

Without going into complex details, let me say simply that the new international cooperation achieved through the opening of these Library of Congress offices abroad has produced a new level of uniformity in cataloging practice which has brought us definitely closer toward reducing the world's output of books to some semblance of bibliographic order, an important prerequisite to the free flow of books and ideas among the nations of the world.

I was told last week that the Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America, because of this program, already have their knowledge of the publications of each other increased by about 50 percent. In other words they discovered and recorded an aditional 50 percent of new titles in Latin America.

Sir Frank Francis, director of the British Museum and president of the International Federation of Library Associations, in discussing the centralized cataloging program at the last meeting of that organization in Holland said

The acceptance and the implementation of their proposal for shared cataloging on an international scale would result in speedier bibliographical control of the materials flowing ever faster into our libraries would reduce cataloging costs and would release the energies of our cataloging forces, which are at present engaged in duplicating each other's efforts a countless number of times in different libraries not only in all parts of the world, but in almost every country under the sun.

I hope that over the next three to five years, it will be possible to get this collaboration fully worked out and made into a going concern. It is not only desirable that this should be done, it is necessary; otherwise the great libraries will cease to play their proper part in the intellectual life of their countries, because of the sheer impossibility of meeting all the demands which are made upon them...

It may be noted that this program is completely in accord, in spirit, and in substance, with the U.S. policy as expressed by President Johnson, last January, in his statement on international book and library activities.

The accompanying directive to Government agencies specifically instructed them to further a greatly increased inflow of foreign books through appropriations under title II-C. The Interagency Book Committee, appointed by Assistant Secretary of State Frankel, to coordinate and implement these activities, has recommended full funding for this purpose.

To make this important legislation even more effective, we recommend respectfully, in addition to full funding, certain specific changes: 1. These foreign offices of the Library of Congress are purchasing for that library one copy of each of the new books believed important for American scholarship and research.

One copy for the whole country is hardly enough and we believe. that the relatively modest added cost of depositing another copy in some institution in another part of the country as a national loan copy would be thoroughly justified. The Center for Research Libraries in Chicago, for example, would be an appropriate institution.

This is a sort of library's library, a nonprofit corporation supported and operated jointly by 24 major universities from coast to coast. It