Mr. HATHAWAY. Have you taken into consideration the fact that students coming in for $1,000, or for the limit, borrow additional money at conventional rates which would offset the loss on loans? Dr. WALKER. There is some of that. Again, I think we should do some surveying on this score to find out how much there is. It is a threefold operation. You start putting a certain amount of savings aside, then the student qualifies for a guaranteed loan; the parents supplement that and there may be a scholarship or several things in the picture. This would raise the return somewhat to the bank but not to a breakeven proposition as yet. Mr. HATHAWAY. That figure is not computed in here? Dr. WALKER. No, it is not. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Dr. Walker, and you other gentlemen. You have been very helpful. The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 20, 1967.) HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Gibbons, Burton, Quie, and Esch. Mrs. GREEN. The committee will come to order for further consideration of the two bills on the higher education amendments. The first witnesses before the committee this morning are representatives from the American Library Association and I am glad to welcome Germaine Krettek and her colleagues and friends to the hearing. Would you come to the table and introduce the witnesses for the record to Congressman Gibbons and others who will be joining us? STATEMENT OF MISS GERMAINE KRETTEK OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MORRIS GELFAND, LIBRARIAN, QUEENS COLLEGE; AND MRS. SARA SRYGLEY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, LIBRARY SCHOOL, FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY Miss KRETTEK. Thank you, I am very pleased to introduce Mrs. Sara Srygley, Florida State University professor, and I think you have her biography as well as Dr. Gelfand's for the record. This is Dr. Morris Gelfand, librarian, Queen's College, City University of New York. I should like him to speak first if it meets with your approval. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you and may I say to you people appearing here to testify that those of us on the committee recognize Germaine Krettek as an outstanding representative of the American Library Association and she represents you very well. Mr. GELFAND. My name is Morris A. Gelfand. I am professor and chief librarian of Queens College, City University of New York. Except for a period of some four and a half years in the U.S. Armed Forces, during the last 7 months of which I served as library officer of the Pacific theater in General MacArthur's headquarters, I have worked continuously since 1931 as a librarian, as a teacher, and supervisor of instruction in librarianship, and as a library consultant. From 1949 to the present, I have served as a member of more than 15 evaluation committees of the Middle States Association of Col 155 80-155-67-pt. 1-11 leges and Secondary Schools. In this capacity, I have visited many colleges and universities, both small and large, in the United States. My foreign experience includes work as a teacher and library consultant in Burma, Thailand, India, and Brazil. On behalf of the American Library Association, a 35,000 member nonprofit organization of librarians and laymen, I wish to support enthusiastically the general purposes and provisions of the 1967 higher education bill, and to discuss some of its implications for college libraries. The passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was a great legislative achievement, the full potential of which has yet to be realized. As you know, the initial distribution of funds was not made until June 1966, and was limited to basic grants of $5,000 to college and university libraries. For fiscal year 1967 more funds were made available and libraries were invited to submit applications for supplemental and special purpose as well as basic grants. The authorizations for funding this act, as well as the National Defense Education Act, the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act, and the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 are scheduled to expire June 30, 1968. By extending most of the provisions for these acts for 5 years to 1973, and providing adequate funding accordingly the Congress will perform an essential service. The passage and ultimate implementation of the 1967 higher education bill are vitally necessary because the needs of our colleges and the students continue to be great and urgent. Early passage of the bill will provide not only the additional authorization required, but also continuity of funding and time for colleges to plan wisely for long-range development and improvement. I should like to emphasize this moment this is indeed an extremely important aspect of the legislation from the point of view of colleges and universities. We do need the time for planning and hopefully we would look toward some sense of assurance of continuity in the funding. The proposed amendments to title II of the Higher Education Act are my immediate concern, but I should also like to comment briefly on certain aspects of other titles. TITLE I-COMMUNITY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION We are in hearty accord with the purposes of title I, which allocates funds to colleges and universities to finance continuing education and community service programs that deal with juvenile delinquency, unemployment, inadequate health services, and other urban concerns. To support these important programs effectively, increasingly large amounts of books and other library materials are required. TITLE II-PART A. COLLEGE LIBRARY RESOURCES It is important that the full amount of the authorized $50 million if not a greater sum, be provided each fiscal year for college library resources. The budget recommendation for fiscal year 1968 is $25 million, just half the amount authorized, and the following factors should be considered in making a judgment: 1. Contemporary college instruction depends heavily on a large variety of library materials, rather than textbooks. 2. Fifty percent of our 4-year colleges and 82 percent of our 2-year colleges are below standard with respect to library holdings. 3. The rapidly rising student enrollment in higher education institutions increases the demand for books and further aggravates the deficiencies of below standard academic libraries. 4. Most college libraries are receiving inadequate financial support. A widely accepted standard for support is 5 percent of the total annual budget for educational purposes but the actual amount that is being allocated averages about 3.5 percent. 5. There has been a phenomenal increase in publications in recent years and most of our libraries are unable to cope with it. It is estimated that in the natural sciences alone more than 50,000 journals are published annually. In the United States, 28,595 books were published in 1965, more than twice the number published in 1958. The college library must acquired a significant proportion of the current output of publications to serve effectively its students and faculty. 6. The broadening of the curriculum which is taking place in our colleges requires additional library material. 7. The expansion of graduate studies and research creates additional new demands for books and journals. My own college library provides a good example of the impact of these factors. We have 24,000 students; approximately 11,000 undergraduate day students, 3,000 graduate students, and 10,000 evening students. Up to 1961 our college was an undergraduate liberal arts institution. Today it is a university in fact if not in name. The library, accordingly, must serve a university type program. Our library presently contains about 250,000 volumes. It should contain also close to 1,000,000 volumes to serve present programs of teaching and research. By 1972 the college is destined to have an enrollment of 40,000. We applied for a basic and supplemental grant, but had no matching funds to support a special purpose grant. A library for an institu tion of such scope and size should possess not only a large general collection, but must add new books at a rate of between 50,000 to 100,000 a year in order to keep up the flow of new publications and fill in the gaps in its retrospective collections. I might put in an aside that in the United States we published 20,000-some-odd books. In England I think they published somewhat more than this number. This is only the United States and England; when we consider the output of the other countries throughout the world, one can readily appreciate the mass of new materials we face is very great indeed. Every college has to have some portion of this mass for its students and its faculty. |