STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCIS J. BROWN, STAFF ASSOCIATE OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, AND MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EMPLOY THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK

Dr. BROWN. My name is Francis J. Brown, staff associate of the American Council on Education and a member of the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. As you know, the American Council on Education is a voluntary nonprofit organization, its membership including 115 national organizations in education and some 925 colleges and universities.

For some 9 years I have also been secretary of the committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education. This committee has concerned itself across the years with the many problems involving governmental relationships in our institutions of higher education. Because this bill does not fall specifically in the field of colleges and universities, the committee has not specifically acted upon it, but it has endorsed the legislation in principle.

One of the major problems that has constantly been before our committee has been the multiplicity of relationships of the various agencies of the Federal Government dealing with various aspects of the same problem. For example, in our planning in relation to the military training programs in the colleges and universities, it was necesrary to work almost independently with the Departments of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, as well as several nonmilitary agencies. Similarly, in relation to the exchange-of-persons program, contacts must be continually maintained with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of State, and the United States Office of Education.

I have used these illustrations as specific examples in a field other than that of this particular bill to show the effect of overlapping agencies and the consequent difficulty in developing a cordinated program. It is because this bill seeks to eliminate much of this duplication of effort and overlapping of the work of agencies in the field of services to the physically and mentally handicapped that I meet with your committee this morning urging your favorable consideration of H. R. 3095. Services to the physically handicapped are now available through the activities of a number of governmental agencies, but at no point is there the necessary organization to coordinate these efforts. While the various agencies each seek to render service in the specific field of its authorization, it is the inevitable tendency to think in terms of organizational services. Each provides assistance for a particular aspect of the individual, but no agency at present has sufficient total responsibility to think of the individual as a person and to render total service to him as an individual either drectly or through havng sufficient authority to corodinate the activities of the various governmental agencies. The proposed Federal Commission and its advisory council, both of which would be provided for in the proposed bill, would have this authority. The bill also would provide for the transfer of certain governmental agencies to the Commission, thus providing a direct channel for a coordinated program for the mentally and physically handicapped.

I should like to point out that the bill does not contemplate any considerable expansion of existing services. Its first purpose is to transfer such services to a single agency in order that they may be developed into an integrated program with the handicapped person as the focal point.

I do not propose to discuss the details of the legislation nor the need for the services thus coordinated. Others have presented such data before this committee. I should like, however, specifically to call attention to three further needs which are not specifically provided for in the proposed legislation. Title V, section 501, provides for educational grants for unfeasible cases. It authorizes additional agencies, including nonprofit institutions of higher education, to provide special services to handicapped persons that are commonly known as shut-ins. Such provision is good, but there is also need to provide subsidies to educational institutions in order that they may give special education and training to handicapped individuals who are able to attend the institutions and for whom special services are necessary in order that their education may be effective. In some instances this will entail special courses; in others, special recording and duplicating devices, as well as other specific help.

Financial assistance should also be available to educational institutions to provide guidance and counseling for the disabled. The bill provides for the assembling of information about job opportunities but has no specific provisions to assure that such information is made of greatest usefulness through personal consultation with disabled persons. Very early in the veterans' education program the Veterans' Administration recognized the importance of guidance and counseling, especially among veterans requiring vocational rehabilitaton and attending institutions under Public Law 16 for disabled veterans. Through cooperation with colleges and universities, some 350 guidance centers were established. In a recent sampling survey made by the American Council on Education, there was almost universal testimony both from the institutions and from the veterans as to the vital importance of such guidance and counseling.

A third area of service not specifically provided for, especially under title V, is that of research as to the most effective types of training for the vocational rehabilitation of the physically handicapped. Through contracts with the Federal Government, educational institutions are spending vast sums for research in terms of instruments of war, with very little available through the Federal Government for research in terms of the vocational rehabilitation of the individual through education.

I would therefore strongly urge that in finally reporting out H. R. 3095 the committee expand title V to provide at least some limited amount of money to assist institutions in doing all three of the things which I have described: (1) providing special assistance to the physically handicapped who are enrolled in their institutions, (2) making available such number of guidance and counseling centers as to assist the disabled in the wise choice of their vocation and in the best training program for rehabilitation, and (3) conducting some limited. amount of controlled research as to the most effective educational program for the vocational rehabilitation of the handicapped.

There is one other problem of relationship which perhaps has been deliberately omitted from this legislation. I refer to the education of

the disabled veteran under Public Law 16. While it is true that the Federal Government has perhaps a more direct responsibility for the veteran who was disabled in the service of his country, the bill should in my judgment provide for some closer coordination between the readjustment program for servicemen and that envisaged in this bill for the nonveteran. For example, the guidance and counseling centers might well serve the nonveteran, since these centers are in the colleges and universities and administered by them. Information regarding employment opportunities is of equal usefulness to both veterans and nonveterans. While it is apparently envisaged that the Veterans' Administration will continue to conduct its own vocational rehabilitation program for veterans, the bill should specifically provide for closer coordination between the program of the VA and that of the Federal Commission for services to the physically handicapped.

The demands made upon this Congress are almost unprecedented in their multitude and in their far-reaching effect not only upon our own Nation but also upon the world. This bill is, however, in a somewhat different category than other proposals before the Congress. Its primary purpose is to coordinate existing services, and the amount of money involved is relatively small. Even if it involves vastly greater expenditures, our Nation cannot afford even in our concern for national security to neglect those of our own citizens who, through the unfortunate circumstances of birth, disease, or accident, are physically or mentally handicapped. I sincerely hope the committee will favorably report out this legislation and give consideration to the proposed minor suggestions. I hope, too, that it will be enacted both speedily and favorably in this session of the Congress.

Mr. WIER. He brings up a relationship here between this agency in this field and the possibilities of what the schools and universities might contribute in the advancement of independence by the physically handicapped.

While labor has concerned itself with perhaps an immediate problem of taking the handicapped and getting them into jobs as rapidly as possible, I am wondering now whether you know of any school or college, with their research facilities, that has made any study of fitting into industry or professional life people of various incapacities?

Mr. Hines said that they could take many people who have a leg or both legs and fit them into many of their positions when the physically handicapped are in a sitting position, and that they can produce perhaps more than the fellow now handicapped.

Mr. Kelley asked, "What do you do with a man with one arm; what do you do with a blind man?" Has any study been made in the educational institutions as to the possibility of fitting him into a professional status?

Dr. FRANCIS. There are two studies that have been made by the American Council on Education. One was the study which was subsidized by the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV. That study was made specifically to determine the kinds of programs that colleges and universities and schools

Mr. WIER. I am not talking about programs. You people program too much. I am talking about a practical application of taking on a fellow with one hand, one leg, or blind. I know where they pick them up in the blind field. Mr. Hines could have said that the broommakers have taken in a lot of blind people.

Dr. BROWN. This particular study was primarily in terms of the kind of training that would be necessary, and the kind of training facilities available in order. that the individual then might procure employment. The study was made of some forty different institutions in the United States. The center of the investigation was the University of Minnesota.

Then the other study has been of the guidance and counseling phases of the program to determine whether or not the kinds of information you are asking for are adequately transmitted to the individual to help the person make his own decision.

In other instances, the reports are extremely favorable as to the kinds of things being done. I agree with you very heartily, sir, there is a very grave need for study, even more comprehensive than by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or any other agency at the moment, to determine the kinds of handicaps and the degree of restriction of employment which that kind of handicap has.

Mr. WIER. That is what I am getting at.

Dr. BROWN. That would certainly, in my judgment, be one of the very important areas of research that this commission would ask to be looked into. It is certainly basic to any readjustment program.

Mr. BAILEY. You raise a question that is basic here in that you propose in discussing H. R. 3095 that grants be made to the colleges for doing work in rehabilitation and fitting disabled persons. That is pretty much in contrast with the present procedure under the operation of the Federal Security Agency.

I know that there has been considerable testimony before the committee about a rehabilitation center in Virginia. To what extent would your proposal, if it were enacted by the Congress, to set up this independent commission involve the abandonment of these centers already set up directly under the Federal Security Agency? Dr. BROWN. I would say not at all, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. Do you think that they could be correlated and work together?

Dr. BROWN. They could be correlated, and the educational institutions would be used only to the degree where they could supplement the services already available through the Government.

Mr. BAILEY. I take it that there were no facilities in the colleges and that made necessary the setting up of these centers; is that right?

Dr. BROWN. Right, plus the fact that the educational institutions have not been sufficiently aware of their responsibilities in this field, and that is one of the reasons why the American Council is particularly interested in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. BAILEY. I want to thank you, Dr. Brown.

Dr. BROWN. Thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before you.

Mr. WIER. Do you know of any man or department in any of the universities or colleges today who could sit here and say, "I think we have fields of endeavor in this country into which we can fit any kind of crippled individual." Has anyone that kind of information? Dr. BROWN. Not at the present time.

Mr. KELLEY. We will now hear from our colleague, Representative James E. Van Zandt.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. VAN ZANT. First, I want to express my appreciation for being given the privilege of appearing before you.

On March 3, 1949, I introduced H. R. 3217, one of the many bills on the same subject, a bill designed to establish a Federal commission on services for the physically handicapped, to define its duties, and for other purposes.

As I have said, my bill is one of many introduced on the subject, and of course it is introduced in cooperation with the American Federation of the Physically Handicapped.

Mr. Paul A. Strachan, president of the American Federation for the Physically Handicapped, Inc., whom I have known for many years, is the prime sponsor of this legislation, and I know is very much in favor of it.

According to available information, this bill and many others will affect some 38,000,000 American people who are in some degree physically disabled. The bill also provides that the Federal Government take leadership in the field of rehabilitating our millions of handicapped persons and place them in suitable employment.

I am heartily in favor of this legislation, and in simple justice to our 38,000,000 handicapped citizen, I respectfully request that_the legislation be given favorable consideration by this committee. I see here present this morning Dr. Bartle, who has been interested in this field for many years, and I feel sure that Dr. Bartle is in a position to give to the committee much advice based on his experience.

Dr. Bartle was for many years the principal relief doctor of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the residents of Altoona, Pa., learned to know him, and we are willing to follow his advice based on his treatment of thousands of railroad workers in Altoona, and based on his experience that has been spread over so many years.

Mr. KELLEY. I wish to say with reference to Dr. Bartle that he did testify and was a very excellent witness. He made a very fine

statement.

Mr. VAN ZANDT. Fine. I would rest my case on the testimony of Dr. Bartle.

Again, I appreciate this privilege. I left another committee to dash up here to say these few words and lend my support to this legislation.

Mr. BAILEY. The committee appreciates your presence here, Representative Van Zandt.

Mr. WIER. I think we are all quite in accord.

Mr. McCONNELL. I wish to express my appreciation of my colleague's appearance here and his interest in this type of work. Mr. KELLEY. I join in that.

Mr. BAILEY. We will now hear from Representative Mary Norton. of New Jersey.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARY NORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

I appear here today in support of legislation to provide a Federal Commission on Services for the Physically Handicapped. I have