timely statistical data hampers the committee in its work, I have no doubt, as much as it keeps professional and public interest groups like ours in the dark when we have to prepare recommendations for this committee and others.

Although the data are not as recent as we would like, we do know that the title II program has a long way to go-in spite of its many accomplishments-if it is to achieve the goals set for it by Congress. In the 3-year period that ended in the summer of 1968, for example, the proportion of schools with library media centers increased from 52 to 87 percent. A media center is a collection of teaching and learning materials of various kinds-films, tapes, transparencies, maps and other items as well as books, reference works and magazines. The larger number of schools with media centers is an encouraging fact, but we must call the committee's attention to the fact that fully half of the school library media centers fail to meet the standards of adequacy set for them by the States themselves. Deficiencies in typical States are described in an attachment to this testimony. In particular, I invite the committee's attention to the map showing the percentage of elementary schools without libraries. When we see that such populous States as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California have libraries in less than half of their elementary schools, then we know that title II is needed and requires a higher level of support.

We recommend that the committee appropriate $125 million under title II of the ESEA. There are still 40 percent of public elementary schools without libraries, despite progress since enactment of the ESEA in 1965. With this testimony, we present information collected from the States with respect to their needs for school library resources. These illustrative reports demonstrate the concern of librarians, teachers, and school board members. It would be regrettable to hobble these efforts by maintaining the title II appropriation at the current level. In view of the need, and the rising cost of library materials, to stand still would mean we must fall back. The average price of a juvenile book rose from $3.39 in 1967 to $4.23 in 1971. While the appropriation under title II was increased substantially by this committee last year, it has not been increased commensurately with the increase in the cost of the items these funds buy for the schoolchildren of the Nation. The $90 million recommended in the budget would only buy about onethird book per child. The amount spent for textbooks has fallen to 1.1 percent of annual per-pupil expenditures, when the recommended standard is at least 5 percent. In fact, in 1970 we Americans spent more than twice as much on pet food as we did for textbooks, that is $969.7 million for pet food and $454.7 million for textbooks. I do not think that is a comparison in which we can take great pride, and we urge the committee to increase the appropriation for title II to at least $125 million for fiscal year 1973. The authorization is $220 million, as you will note the attached table of funds for library related programs. I should point out that, as the committee is aware, title II funds may be used only for library and instructional materials. For equipment, schools must turn to matching grants under title III-A of the National Defense Education Act. Extension of this authority would be accomplished by enactment of the pending higher education amendments.

The administration requested nothing for this vital program, but we would hope that the committee would make its own determination of the importance of this item, as it has in the past, and continue the availability of funds for instructional assistance.

The public library as we know it is an American invention that is being envied and emulated throughout the world, but we do not seem to be holding it as high in our own estimation as we once did. There has never been a time when public library services are more needed. There are an estimated 20 million Americans who are completely without access to library services in their community. Where there are public libraries, their resources are strained to keep pace with the needs of the disadvantaged adults who want to improve themselves and of the handicapped and other population groups requiring special services or equipment. The House Conference on Aging recently recommended, for example, "that the public library, because of its nearby neighborhood character, be strengthened and used as a primary community learning resource." The public library is also expected to help accomplish the goal of the "Right to Read" program of wiping out illiteracy in this country within the decade.

Title I of the Library Services and Construction Act is the principal Federal program for strengthening public library services and permitting them to focus on specific areas of need. The President's budget proposed to reduce this appropriation by $16.6 million from the current appropriation. A reduction of this amount would have a disastrous effect on vital programs because, as the attached map shows, the largest cuts proportionately would be absorbed by the most populous States, including Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Texas, and California. In trying to assess the impact of reductions of the magnitude of those in the President's budget, we asked the States to tell us of the effect of such reductions on their programs. Responses show, State by State, that acceptance of the President's budget recommendation of $30 million would reduce library services to the handicapped, shut-ins, the elderly, rural families, Spanish-speaking communities, blacks, and many of those who are disadvantaged in other ways. A sampling of the replies we received is attached to this testimony. An estimated 122 million persons in all parts of the country would lose at least some of their library services. Instead of reducing the appropriation for title I of the Library Services and Construction Act, we recommend that the committee increase it to least $75 million. (Authorization is $117.6 million for fiscal year 1973.) We asked State officials how they would use additional Federal funds if they became available. They listed their three most pressing needs as service to the disadvantaged and to people in rural areas and the development of regional library systems.

I would emphasize the responsibility stated by Congress to use title I funds to provide library services in penal institutions. It is estimated that about 2 percent of the total appropriation for title I in the current fiscal year will be used to provide library services to inmates of correctional institutions of various types. That amounts to $965,000

I

for the entire United States. Former Attorney General Mitchell, when he addressed the historic First National Conference on Corrections at Williamsburg, Va. last December, noted that "the rising level of education in the United States is leaving a bigger gap between the undereducated offender and society at large.

Mr. Mitchell concluded that "our job training and educational programs in the prisons must be pushed even harder to keep up with successes in other aspects of society." This committee has supported the education and training of offenders through its support of the Manpower Development and Training Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, and the Economic Opportunity Act. A larger appropriation for title I of the LSCA would buttress these other programs, and this is needed, for how effective can an adult basic education or job training program be if there is not an effective library available to the inmates of the institution?

The President's budget again contains no requests for funds for title II of the Library Services and Construction Act, for public library construction projects. We have been informed that nearly 800 public library construction projects are contemplated over the next 5 years in 41 of the States. For most of these projects, the State and local matching money is available, but this could not be used if the committee accepts the recommendation that this program be eliminated entirely this year. There are 200 communities with public library construction projects in approvable form, awaiting only the availability of Federal funds in the coming fiscal year. In many States project applications have not been permitted due to uncertainty of LSCA title II funds. Therefore we recommend that the committee appropriate no less than $30 million for title II. (Fiscal year 1973 authorization is $84 million.) It should be noted that, of the projects for which funds are available to match fiscal year 1973 appropriations, almost half are located in rural areas, inner city areas or Model Cities. This is evidence that increased funds would be directed to the places in greatest need of modern library facilities, which are essential to public library programs of quality.

The association further recommends that the committee appropriate $15 million under title III of the act instead of the wholly inadequate amount proposed by the administration. The 1971 amendments to the Library Services and Construction Act required the States to form advisory councils. With their assistance, the States are now making long-range plans for the development and coordination of their libraries and information services. This planning is now under way, and the citizen advisory groups are enthusiastic about the possibility, at last, of linking together cooperative networks of libraries at the local, regional, or interstate level. The most urgent projects of this kind have now been identified. As Congress directed, these cooperative networks would provide for "the systematic and effective coordination of the resources of school, public, academic, and special libraries and information centers for improved supplementary services for the special clientele served by each type of library or center." Only lack of funds is holding back these urgently needed networks.

Title II-A of the Higher Education Act, which provides grants for college library resources, has been the victim of a totally inadequate level of funding and an effort by the Office of Education to concentrate funds on a certain few institutions, in disregard of the intent of Congress. Unless these policies are reversed, their consequences will have serious implications for the quality of our nationwide college and research library system.

A basic tool of any college or university is its library. The current expansion of knowledge, with the resultant massive explosion in literature in all fields, has sharply increased the cost of even the minimal library for an undergraduate college. Major universities, with their heavy emphasis on graduate education and research, face even greater increases in their annual library expenditures. The financial pressures bearing down upon almost all institutions of higher education in recent years have forced most of the Nation's colleges and universities to reduce the percentage of the total institutional funds that is made available to their libraries. We are informed, for example, that the UCLA library is buying half as many books as in 1967, and the University of Michigan library can buy no new books at all at the present time. If such large institutions are in crisis, the committee can imagine the condition at other colleges and universities.

Title II-A of the Higher Education Act provides funds to help college and university libraries acquire resources, but the level of funding today is so low as to be totally inadequate to even begin to meet their needs. Although $90 million is authorized for fiscal year 1972, only $11 million has been appropriated. The law stipulates that 85 percent of HEA title II-A funds be appropriated for basic and supplemental grants-basic grants of up to $5,000 for library resources, and supplemental grants of up to $10 per full-time student to institutions demonstrating a special need. The remaining 15 percent is for special purpose grants to help meet special institutional, regional, or national library needs. Today 2,573 institutions of higher education are eligible to receive basic grants under HEA title II-A. If each of them were to receive a $5,000 grant, the total cost would be about $12.5 million, an amount already in excess of the $11 million appropriation for fiscal

1972.

The average cost of a book in 1971 was $13.25—an amount 57 percent higher than in 1967. A basic grant of $5,000 in 1971, therefore, would buy 36 percent less than the same amount 4 years earlier. In some fields of study, the cost of books has risen much more. A work in sociology or economics, for instance, would have cost a college library $8.09 in 1967, but by 1971, the average price of a book in these fields had risen to $17.45, an increase of 116 percent. This means that, in 1967, a college library could buy more than twice as many books in sociology and economics as it can buy today with the same amount of money.

This problem is made more acute because periodicals have been increasing even more rapidly in price, averaging around 25 percent per year, as compared to some 15 percent for books. Because complete files of periodicals must be kept, the list is not subject to compression in lean years and expansion in good years as is, to a considerable extent, the

purchase of books. These subscriptions and binding thus represent an implied encumbrance on the budget which must be subtracted before books can be purchased.

The combination of increasing financial pressures on college and university administrations, resulting in decreased funds for college libraries, plus the skyrocketing cost of library materials, results in today's grave financial crisis of our Nation's college and research libraries. Moreover, this crisis would not be alleviated even if every eligible institution were to receive a $5,000 basic grant. That is why we recommend an appropriation of $30 million under title II-A.

The effort to concentrate HEA title II-A funds on those institutions "in greatest need" also needs further attention by this committee. In fiscal year 1971, although 2,165 institutions of higher education applied for the basic grants, only 548 received these grants. This means that 1.617 institutions applied for the grants but were turned down. (For reactions to the changed guidelines, see the attached sampling of letters from institutions of higher education.) There were two reasons for such a long rejection list. First, the overall appropriation was insufficient, and second, the Office of Education limited the basic grants to those institutions which qualified for a supplemental grant, that is, those institutions that demonstrated a special need. These were primarily black colleges and new community colleges. It is abundantly clear that the Nation's predominantly black colleges and new community colleges need massive transfusions of Federal funds if their students are to be assured equal educational opportunity with the rest of the country's college students. In the predominantly black colleges, the cumulative deficiencies in library resources that exist today are the result of years and years of subsistence on totally inadequate budgets. The problem is well stated in a recent task force report of the Institute for Higher Educational Opportunity, entitled "Special Financial Needs of Traditionally Negro Colleges.

Clearly, it will not be sufficient, in the case of the traditionally Negro institutions, merely to meet the demands of normal library development, or even to match library expenditures at other institutions. Supplementary funds will have to be applied to these institutions for library improvement over a period of several

years.

New community colleges face a similar problem in that they must build up a library starting from scratch. Multiple sets of expensive reference books and back issues of periodicals, for example, must be purchased at today's prices.

The Office of Education, however, has tried to direct all available funds under the title II-A basic and supplementary grant programs to these institutions with special needs. This results in total neglect of the more than 1,600 remaining institutions of higher education. As these institutions are forced to cut back on their acquisition of library resources, they will be in the position several years hence of trying to ill costly gaps in their collections caused by neglect during the present period. We simply cannot neglect one group of libraries in higher education in order to help another group. It is clear that supplemental funds must be made available to help those institutions with special needs. Our black colleges and our new community colleges must not be neglected. They must receive additional funds. The American sys