As was pointed out in Mr. Ewing's testimony, membership on this Council consists of representatives of medicine, education, business, industry, labor, services to the blind, social welfare and others whose interests are closely related to the problems of the disabled. Several of the members are themselves handicapped and therefore also represent the viewpoint and attitudes of the disabled. It is clear that this advisory group which is already in being includes representation of much broader interests than the Council which would be created by H. R. 3095 and identical bills.

There is also already in existence the President's Committee on Observance of National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week which promotes employment of the handicapped throughout the year, as well as emphasizes the observance of this special week. House Joint Resolution 228 to which reference was made in Mr. Ewing's testimony, a resolution to strengthen this committee has now been enacted by the Congress and signed by the President, July 11, 1949 (Public Law 162, 81st Cong.). Consequently, there would seem to be no need for the National Commission of Employment of the Handicapped which would be created by these bills.

H. R. 3095 and identical measures would also create a Federal Interagency Committee composed of representatives of Federal agencies participating in activities relating to the handicapped, with the Administrator of the new Federal Commission serving as its chairman and given the task of effectuating the committee's program and policies. Although the use of a properly constituted interagency committee is desirable, there is serious doubt about the advisability of establishing it by law. The one which would be created by these bills also has other defects. A committee composed of representatives of Federal agencies whose duties for their respective agencies must have first call on their time should not be expected to perfrom operating functions. Such functions of an operating nature are more appropriately entrusted to administrative agencies responsible for carrying out statutory duties, than to a part-time interagency committee. Yet the committee proposed by the instant bills would have such functions. One of the results of giving both the new Federal Commission and the Interagency Committee operating functions and making the Administrator responsible for carrying out the policies and programs of both of them, might be to place the Administrator in the embarrassing position of having to carry out conflicting policies where the committee and the Commission disagree.

Some of the Interagency Committee's functions would also duplicate functions already exercised under existing law by other agencies. Thus the committee would be authorized, among other things, (1) to ascertain what fields of employment are available to the physically handicapped and make such information public at least once yearly, and (2) to acquaint employers in private industry with the special capabilities of the physically handicapped, and encourage their employment, where feasible and practicable, on an equal footing with the nonhandicapped. The State Employment Services administer programs which provide employment services for farmers, industrial workers, veterans, and other groups, and in cooperation with State rehabilitation agencies, pursuant to section 8 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, for the physically handicapped. This makes possible the exposure of the special groups to all known job opportunities. Physi

94238-49- -6

cally handicapped persons are found in all occupational groups in the labor force, so that segregation of employment services for them would serve to restrict their job opportunities rather than to place them in the normal flow of the labor market.

Interagency committees created by statute confuse rather than clarify the administrative responsibilities of the particular agencies involved. In this connection I think it well to refer to the following statement by a member of the Hoover Commission, James H. Rowe, Jr., who, in commenting on interdepartmental committees advisory to the President, did so in the following words which I feel are also applicable to those cases where the committees are advisory to heads of agencies:

The permanent interdepartmental committee is probably the least satisfactory of all coordinating devices. Interdepartmental committees invariably refuse to act without the unanimous consent of all members. Committee decisions, therefore, are likely to represent the least common denominator of the committee's thinking Even more important, however, is the fact that interdepartmental committees limit the President's freedom of action and render more difficult his task of securing over-all coordination. Although such committees are generally limited to "advisory" functions, nonetheless the President, as a practical matter, is bound to accept "unanimous" advice from the major interested agencies represented on the committee, despite the fact that unanimity may be the product of log-rolling. The only alternative would be openly to repudiate his chief policy advisers.

Although Commissioner Rowe's comments were directed to a proposed interdepartmental committee responsible to the President, the basic principles are in my opinion equally applicable to the proposal contained in H. R. 3095.

It appears that the remaining provisions of H. R. 3095 and identical bills are directed toward improving the well-being of the severely disabled. With this objective I am in complete accord. I am of the opinion, however, that the proposed approach of the section titled "Cooperative Enterprises, Grants to States for Aid to the Totally Disabled and Educational Grants for Unfeasible Cases" would result in duplication and competition with established and organized programs and, in some instances, would be impracticable of administration.

The Federal Security Agency has filed with your committee an official report which analyzes in detail each of the proposals contained in H. R. 3095, and which I sincerely hope each member of the committee will find it possible to read. If this analysis has not been made a part of the record, I respectfully request permission to insert it in the record at this time. Approval of this request will conserve the hearing time of the committee and permit a presentation of the provisions contained in H. R. 5577, which is in accord with the program of the President.

Mr. KELLEY. Without objection, it will be inserted. (The report referred to is as follows:)

FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY,
Washington, July 12, 1949.

Hon. JOHN LESINSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your requests of March 2, 5, 8, 16, and April 30, 1949, for a report on II. R. 3095, H. R. 3143, H. R. 3188, H. R. 3217, H. R. 3292, H. R. 3339, H. R. 3424, H. R. 3490, H. R. 3510, H. R. 3588, H. R. 3523, H. R. 3554, and H. R. 4348, identical bills "To establish a Federal Commission

on Services for the Physically Handicapped, to define its duties, and for other purposes."

These bills would establish a Federal Commission on Services for the Physicially Handicapped, headed by an Administrator, to carry out the bills' provisions. To the Commission would be transferred all functions of the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Federal Security Agency. The bills would create an Advisory Council on Affairs of the Handicapped "to be responsible to the Administrator in the formulation of administrative policies, and to advise him on any matters relating to promoting the purposes of this act." Also established by the bills would be a Federal Interagency Committee on Rehabilitation and Employment of Handicapped, composed of representatives of all Federal agencies "which now or in future may have a substantial and significant participation in activities dealing with problems of the handicapped," to develop more economical and efficient methods of administering activities relating to the handicapped and to perform and coordinate various functions in the field. Finally, the bills would establish a National Commission on Employment of the Handicapped, consisting of representatives of government, business, labor, welfare, and other groups and individuals, to "voluntarily cooperate in advancing employment of handicapped persons."

Title III of the bills would authorize 25-year interest-bearing loans (of not to exceed $20,000 each) to public and private agencies or organizations for financing work projects of the sheltered workshop type for physically handicapped "primarily drawn from the group regarded as 'unfeasible for rehabilitation'." Nonliquidating loans could be made in cases where the Administrator of the new Federal commission found the project could not be operated at a profit, was of substantial benefit to the handicapped, and meets other specified conditions.

Title IV would authorize grants to States for $60 per month payments, pursuant to approved State plans, to handicapped persons certified to be unfeasible for rehabilitation and without means of livelihood and support. Title V of the bills would authorize grants to local public and nonprofit private educational groups providing special training and education for the shut-in handicapped. Title VI would authorize appropriations for the establishment of a revolving loan fund from which 2-percent loans would be made to States whose funds for vocational rehabilitation work are exhausted, the loans to be repaid within 30 days after the adjournment of the State legislature which met after the consummation of the loan.

Title VII of the bills would establish a Division for the Physically Handicapped in the United States Civil Service Commission to look after the problems of the handicapped applicants for civil-service positions. Title VIII states that existing benefits for the blind shall not prejudice receipt of additional benefits under the bills nor shall the bills be construed as abolishing or limiting any benefits now received by the blind. Title IX provides for cooperation between the new Federal commission and other Federal agencies in planning and devising safety measures in public buildings and other Federal property. Title X requires Federal agencies to transmit to the commission reports they may receive on epidemics and disasters.

Title XI of the bills contains miscellaneous provisions one of which makes the bill inapplicable to, and relieves the Federal Government of liability in the case of, persons adequately provided for financially through recoveries in damage suits, workmen's compensation or special Federal enactment, or otherwise.

The outstanding feature of these bills-and, in our opinion, their major defect-is the proposed centralization in a new independent agency of several specialized Government functions relating to the rehabilitation and welfare of the physically handicapped, and the consequent isolation of these functions from all other Government functions relating to the health, education, welfare, and security of the general public.

The establishment of another independent Government agency reporting to the President is in itself a backward step, contrary to the recommendations of all committees and other groups which have studied Government organization. Thus, recommendation No. 17 of the first report of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government is that "these various agencies be consolidated into about one-third of the present number," the objective being to consolidate and unify the executive branch into a more simple structure, and to relieve the President of onerous administrative detail which arises from lack of unification.

The creation of another new agency in this field of Government activity, if justifiable at all, can only be justified by most extraordinary circumstances. Νο

compelling reasons exist for the creation of a new agency to administer vocational rehabilitation and social-security benefits and services for the physically handicapped. Indeed, every reason argues for the continuation of the present grouping under which these functions are administered in a single agency-the Federal Security Agency-together with other health, education, and social-security functions to which vocational rehabilitation services are so closely related.

Vocational rehabilitation, as the term implies, involves successively the physical restoration, vocational training, and economic security of handicapped individuals. Vocational rehabilitation services constitute, in effect, a combination of health, education, and social-security services specially designed and adapted for the handicapped group. With this special program administered in the same agency which administers the general health, education, and social-security functions of the Government, the special needs of the handicapped can and do receive proper consideration in the formulation of over-all health, education, and social-security policies and operating procedures; conversely the policies and operating procedures of the special vocational rehabilitation program can be developed and administered in such a manner as to take full advantage of the services and benefits available under the general programs, as well as of the experience and special knowledge of technical personnel working on the general programs.

In explaining the twelfth recommendation in its first report (to the effect that Government agencies should be grouped as nearly as possible by major purpose), the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government said: "By placing related functions cheek-by-jowl the overlaps can be eliminated, and, of even greater importance, coordinated policies can be developed."

I can think of no better illustration of the application of this principle than that presented by the relation between the special and the general programs now being discussed. The need for the closest coordination between them is selfevident. If vocational rehabilitation and similar services are isolated organizationally from the general health, education, and social-security functions of the Government, duplication, confusion, waste, and inefficiency must inevitably result. I am convinced that such a step, far from emphasizing and improving special Government programs for the handicapped, would so weaken and impair the effectiveness of these programs as very soon to bring into serious question the advisability of continuing special programs for this group.

The basic philosophy of these bills-that health, education, reemployment, and social-security services for the handicapped should be isolated from all general Government programs in these fields-runs directly counter to the philosophy that should govern services for this group. The physically handicapped are, first of all, individuals more like other people than different from them. At local community levels the handicapped at present are to the fullest extent possible educated in the same schools as the nonhandicapped, hospitalized in the same hospitals and registered at the same employment offices without the segregation which would result from the program proposed by the bills. The record clearly indicates that such segregation is unwarranted and harmful to the disabled themselves. It shows clearly the advantages of training and educating them in the regular system to the extent feasible; the fact is that when individuals with physical or mental disabilities have been properly prepared to engage in remunerative employment and have been properly placed in jobs in keeping with their abilities they are able to perform as well as the nonhandicapped. After such preparation and placement they are able to compete on the basis of their skills and of the job they can do rather than on the basis of special concessions. Such a separa-tion of the disabled from the population as a whole will surely be resented by people in this group who have found that in many employment situations their physical condition does not represent a handicap. Except for the relatively small number for whom sheltered employment must be provided, the disabled want freedom from discrimination rather than preferential treatment.

There are other serious defects in these bills. One is the creation of three new statutory advisory bodies, with functions which would supplement or duplicate organizations already established and operating effectively, and which in one instance would impinge on the functions of administrative agencies.

Thus, section 203 establishes a statutory Advisory Council on Affairs of the Handicapped to be responsible to the Administrator in the formulation of administrative policies and to advise him on any matters relating to promoting the purposes of the act. There is in existence an administratively created advisory council which advises the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of this Agency in the development of policies and promotion of the rehabilitation program. It in

cludes representation of much broader interests than the council created by these bills would include and is not responsible to this Agency for any administrative policies or otherwise. There is thus no need for creation of another council by statute.

There is also already in existence the President's Committee on Observance of National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week which promotes employment of the handicapped throughout the year, as well as emphasizes the observance of this special week. House Joint Resolution 228, a resolution to strengthen this committee, is being supported by the administration, and has been recently reported out by your committee. Consequently, there would seem to be no need for the National Commission on Employment of Handicapped which would be created by these bills.

The bills would also create a Federal interagency committee composed of representatives of Federal agencies participating in activities relating to the handicapped, with the administrator of the new Federal commission serving as its chairman and given the task of effectuating its program and policies. There is no question that an interagency committee is desirable. If it is felt that a statutory basis for such a committee is desirable, the one which would be created by these bills has serious defects. A committee composed of representatives of Federal agencies whose duties for their respective agencies must have first call on their time should not be expected to perform operating functions. Such functions of an operating nature are more appropriately entrusted to administrative agencies responsible for carrying out statutory duties, than to a part-time interagency committee. Yet the committee proposed by the instant bills would have such functions. One of the results of giving both the new Federal Commission and the interagency committee operating functions and making the administrator responsible for carrying out the policies and programs of both of them, might be to place the administrator in the embarrassing position of having to carry out conflicting policies where the committee and the Commission disagree.

Some of the interagency committee's functions would also duplicate functions already exercised under existing law by other agencies. Thus the committee would be authorized, among other things, (1) to ascertain what fields of employment are available to the physically handicapped and make such information public at least once yearly, and (2) to acquaint employers in private industry with the special capabilities of the physically handicapped and encourage their employment, where feasible and practicable, on an equal footing with the nonhandicapped. The United States Employment Service provides placement and employment services for farmers, industrial workers, veterans, and other groups, as well as for the physically handicapped. This makes possible the exposure of the special groups to all the job opportunities found by or coming to the employment offices. Physically handicapped persons are found in all occupational groups in the labor force, so that segregation of employment services for them would serve to isolate them, whereas servicing them in the public employment offices places them in the normal flow of the labor market. The selective placement program for physically handicapped has become a well accepted and functioning part of the employment service operation and provides for a highly specialized and effective service for the handicapped in finding employment but without the disadvantages of segregation which these bills would entail.

While training of and stimulation of employment opportunities for the severely disabled is desirable, the provisions of title III, authorizing loans for the establishment and maintenance of special industries for physically handicapped persons drawn primarily from the "unfeasible for rehabilitation group," do not provide a desirable method for accomplishing this objective. In addition to providing inadequate financial resources to accomplish its objective, title III contains no provisions which would assure that the employment opportunities established under it would be so conducted as to prevent the exploitation of disabled persons, to assure the maximum utilization of existing community resources, or to assure the continued availability of the employment opportunities for severely disabled persons. It is our belief that the establishment of sheltered employment opportunities may best be accomplished through a program of grants-in-aid to the States, rather than through the making of loans or through a 100 percent Federal subsidization (where the loan need not be repaid). Joint Federal-State financial participation with State operation and supervision in accordance with approved plans, has proved effective in the rehabilitation program and would be equally effective in this extension of the rehabilitation program.

Title IV of these bills is patterned after the present public assistance titles of the Social Security Act but would be administered by the Federal Commission