or persons present might like to make with respect to problems of the aging generally.

Before I call on our first witness, I would like to read into the record the following telegram which I have just received from the Governor of Indiana, the Honorable Matthew E. Welsh. The telegram addressed to me says:

I regret that a previous commitment which cannot be changed prevents me from appearing before your committee Saturday. I want you to know, however, that I am interested both personally and officially in the work your committee is doing.

There is a growing awareness among Hoosiers of the problems of the aging and aged. There is also an increased understanding that the efforts of a variety of agencies and governmental levels as well as voluntary groups are required to ease the problems of housing, health, employment and other challenges of age. In the field of hospitalization and nursing home expenses, you should know that our Democratic State central committee has by resolution endorsed unanimously the program of President Kennedy. You can be sure the Indiana Democratic Party stands firmly behind the President in this constructive effort to meet these needs.

Our State and county welfare programs undergo almost constant scrutiny as we seek ways to meet the very real and developing needs of the older segment of our population. Our State commission on the aging and aged is active and effective in focusing public attention on these problems and in coordinating efforts to meet them.

I want to assure you, and I hope you will convey this assurance to the committee, that the State of Indiana is actively concerned with this problem and seeks to meet its full responsibilities to these senior citizens.

MATTHEW E. WELSH, Governor.

I am now pleased to call as our first witness the distinguished chairman of the Indiana State Commission on the Aging and Aged to which Governor Welsh has just made reference in his telegram, Dr. George E. Davis.

Dr. Davis, we are very pleased to have you here this morning.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE E. DAVIS, CHAIRMAN, INDIANA STATE COMMISSION ON THE AGING AND AGED

Dr. DAVIS. Congressman Brademas, ladies and gentlemen, my name is George Davis. I am a member of the staff of Purdue University and I am chairman of the Indiana Commission on Aging and Aged.

I note in your reference to the presence of experts and I want to clarify that I am not one of them. If I had any feeling of expertness, I had it all taken out of me a few years ago when I attended a convention down in Dallas, Tex. I had come down to breakfast one morning without my glasses and was having a little difficulty with the bill of fare. Not too much. You can tell from my style of architecture that I was going to get something to eat, but I was having a little difficulty, and I saw a waiter and I called him to my side and handed him the menu and said, "George, what does this say," he smiled as wide as possible, showed his white teeth, and said, "Boss, you are going to have to excuse me. I am just as ignorant as you is.' So I submit, I am ignorant about a great many things and certainly in this field it is almost abysmal in spite of the fact we have been working since 1955 as a commission on the problems of the aging and aged.

I also assumed, Mr. Congressman, that it was pertinent in this hearing to refer to other pieces of legislation as well as the McNamara bill and Fogarty-McNamara bill.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We would be pleased to hear from you.

Dr. DAVIS. So consequently, I am referring to a couple of others. Mr. Chairman, in my testimony in this hearing, I represent the interests of that segment of our population generally known as the aged. This term means different things to different people but has reference to those who are spoken of as our old people. In addition, I represent the aging, for the Indiana commission of which I am chairman is designated by legislative act as the State commission on the aging and aged. I may arbitrarily include those between the ages of 40 and 65 as the aging and those above 65 as the aged.

I will move from the general to the specific and would refer first to H.R. 8732, known as the General University Extension Education Act of 1961. In this bill, section 2(A) under the heading, "Findings and Declaration of Purpose," I find the following statements:

In addition, it is imperative to the Nation's security and defense in this era when an international ideological struggle is being waged for men's minds to carry on a continuing program to further educate the greatest possible number of people with respect to our history, traditions, and institutions.

And a second quote from the same bill :

The Congress further finds that the economic and social conditions resulting from such factors as unemployment caused by technological changes, and mobility of our population, and their attendant problems, and the increasing amount of personal time available to large segments of our population, make it essential to the general welfare that solutions to problems resulting from such factors developed by our scientists and scholars be made directly available to people confronted by them and those who are training others to cope with these problems.

Educational programs that may be made possible by the passage of this bill will obviously include enrollees from the aging and aged group who stand in great need of such programs.

This is especially true in view of the changed economic and social conditions resulting from unemployment caused by technological changes; due to our rapidly becoming predominantly an urban rather than a rural society; due to the shortened workweek, which leaves free time for retraining, for recreational opportunities, and for further general education. Many programs developed as a result of the passage of this act will relate to the maximum use of the talents of our aging and aged population in such a way that they may make their contribution to society and enjoy the knowledge that they are giving of their talents rather than predominantly getting benefits largely because of aging.

Our land-grant colleges are prepared to make a decided contribution to the overall education of the aging and aged.

H.R. 10860, designated as the Basic Education Act, drawn by Representative Perkins, if passed, would be of material assistance to the aging and aged.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I might just interrupt you to say that our Committee on Education and Labor within the last 2 weeks has favorably reported that bill.

Dr. DAVIS. The Perkins bill?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes, sir.

Dr. DAVIS. Fine. Then I will skip that part.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You might, if you wish, simply summarize its

purpose.

Dr. DAVIS. All right. I have only a few lines in here.

87006-63-pt. 2- -2

This act would provide an educational program for those of our people who are illiterate or whose education is less than of the sixthgrade level. The desirability of eradicating illiteracy seems obvious, the need to raise the level of all whose education does not exceed the sixth-grade level is equally obvious. Older people with such a limited education fall easy prey to those ideologies that give democracies great concern. They cannot be used in our highly technical industries, their retraining is obviously difficult; they are at a loss to use their free time advantageously because of their limited education and they are the first to be relegated to the unemployed group. The highest percentage of the total number of our citizens with such a limited education is to be found among the aging and aged.

Another bill I would like to comment upon is the bill on aging introduced in the Senate by Senator McNamara and in the House by Mr. Fogarty.

The Fogarty-McNamara bill would provide grants to each State for the establishment or improvement of State agencies; for the development of programs; and for special projects which would coordinate and expand activities in the field of aging. It would also provide such amounts of money as needed to assist the States in administering this program.

The bill would also authorize direct Federal grants to public or nonprofit private agencies for demonstration, research or training programs relating especially to education, welfare, recreation, and other problems of older persons. The entire program would be administered by a bipartisan, three-member commission appointed by the President.

I want to assure you that, as chairman of the Indiana State Commission on the Aging and Aged, I wholeheartedly support the objectives set forth in the Fogarty-McNamara bill. They are the goals toward which the Indiana commission has been working ever since it came into existence in 1955. I want to say that I am in full accord with most of its provisions and that the sooner provisions like these are incorporated into our Federal programs, the sooner we shall be meeting the broader needs of our rapidly growing number of older people.

There are two provisions, however, with which I cannot agree and I should like to state my reasons for not supporting them.

The part of the bill which we in the commission, and I must pause to say that I should not have used the word "we," I am testifying as an individual, I have not polled the members of the commission and I am, therefore, not reflecting the thinking of the members of the commission.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Dr. Davis.

Dr. DAVIS. The part of the bill with which I strongly disagree is the provision to create a separate commission on aging which would be set up to administer grants and supervise programs. It is my opinion that establishing a commission having such responsibilities within the Federal governmental structure would be breaking long and wellestablished precedent. Other Federal commissions are regulatory in nature, are designed to study and make recommendations regarding a specific problem, or to give visibility to the Government's concern about a particular situation or issue. A Presidential commission can do these things very well but it is doubtful that it is the most

effective instrument for supervising and carrying out an operating program.

I am very much afraid we should find that the creation of a separate commission on aging, responsible only to the President, would tend to be duplicatory in nature and, hence, difficult to administer. To superimpose such a new agency on top of the several departments and agencies now providing services for older people would almost surely make for confusion and inefficiency.

I would have grave doubts about the ability of such a commission to function as a line operating agency. A similar view was expressed by the Senate Subcommittee on Problems of the Aged and Aging, Mr. Chairman, in Report No. 128, dated March 28, 1961. I quote:

The history of State and Federal organization provides ample evidence that the effectiveness of an agency in the determination of public policy is directly related to its place in the established departmental structure of government. The use of independent commissions-outside of a regular department-is helpful for making studies and recommendations on a temporary basis. They are not, however, ordinarily employed for sustained contributions once the period of extensive study and reporting has taken place.

Now I am well aware, Mr. Chairman, that this position may seem contradictory coming, as it does, from one who is the chairman of an independent commission on aging at the State level. The explanation for my position lies mainly in two major facts which I regard as compelling differences between the situation in the Federal Government and in the States.

First, we must recognize that the Federal structure is already overwhelming in size and complexity. To add a new, independent agency with line functions would complicate further the Federal structure and add to the burdens of the Presidency, which are already far too great.

My second objection to the establishment of a Federal commission on aging is that it would destroy the present organization of programs and services which has, in my judgment, wisely placed most of the activities on behalf of older people within a single broad operating agency-the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

We are all aware that within this single Department there are now concentrated most of the programs for income maintenance, health and rehabilitation, control of foods and drugs, education, support of research and training, and the important and expanding activities of the special staff on aging. I have had a long period of growing and satisfying relationships, not only with the special staff on aging, but also with most of the operating agencies of this Department. On the basis of this experience, I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I firmly believe a new program, such as that provided in this bill, would be handled exceptionally well by the special staff on aging.

This staff is expanding its competencies as it increases in size. One of its major assets is that it is located within the Office of the Secretary where it is able to draw on the resources and experience of the entire Department. It has shown its ability repeatedly to achieve a high degree of cooperaiton, not only among the agencies of its own Department, but also among the several Federal departments and agencies having programs for older people. To disrupt this smoothly running and increasingly effective arrangement by drawing important functions off and placing them in a separate and independent commission

that this special staff has accomplished very little indeed and I think Senator McNamara's committee was told in hearings across the country that professionals and older people both felt that a more dynamic force was needed to get action in this field. Do you really feel they are doing enough under the existing circumstances, that they can do the job?

Dr. DAVIS. With the resources, I think they are doing an excellent job. With additional resources, they can do a better job. I am fully aware of the fact that there is division of opinion on the efficacy of the special staff. I happen to be among those who think a special staff is doing a good job. I know there are others who think otherwise. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Davis, for taking the time to be with us. We are very grateful.

Our next witness is Dr. Morton Leeds, who is the secretary of the Commission on the Aged and Aging of the State of Indiana. Dr. Leeds, we are happy to have you with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF DR. MORTON LEEDS, SECRETARY, COMMISSION ON THE AGED AND AGING OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

Dr. LEEDS. I would like to concur with much of what Dr. Davis has said, but I do disagree on one or two points, and I would like to state these.

Last November I was selected to be a member of a six-man national planning committee to help set up a national conference of State executives on aging, the one that Dr. Davis referred to during the course of the planning meetings. I was commissioned by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to do a special analysis of the progress in all the States relating to aging. The analysis was to be based on special reports asked of the States by the Federal Government, and my final report was presented as a keynote address this past Monday, April 9, in Washington, D.C., before all the representatives of the States and many officials of the Federal Government itself.

About 2 months were spent in this analysis, with a detailed examination of thousands of facts. I was asked to determine trends in State activity in a wide variety of fields from local community organization, to health, research, housing, employment, legislation, publications, as well as structure of the State commission themselves. All of the State reports were made available to me, and some technical help was given that made the task of analysis easier.

Now this is not the place to discuss the details of my presentation which will be printed soon as a part of the conference report. However, some aspects of my conclusions bear directly on the hearings today, and I should like to share my thinking of the past few months.

First of all, I was impressed with the very sad fact that 10 States have no commission on aging, and another 10 States have temporary commissions that average about $1,500 per year available to them for all expenses. And this is only 15 months after the White House Conference on Aging, which passed as one of its resolutions the wish to see permanent State units on aging in each of the States.

Second, I noted the enormous burst of activity that took place everywhere in the United States when $15,000 was allocated to each State to participate in the White House Conference.