immediate response needed to attack on separate agencies
Most of you who receive this message will recall the
position against specialized services for the blind which was
taken by the National Council on Independent Living. Now the
National Council on Disability, a federal agency, has taken up
the challenge to separate agencies, as well.
The National Council is established pursuant to title IV of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In recent times a growing number
of its members have been drawn from independent living centers.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the National Council on
Disability has taken the same position about agencies for the
blind that the National Council on Independent Living previously
expressed.
On Thursday, March 20, the House appropriations committee,
subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
Related Agencies will hold its annual hearing on the National
Council on Disability's budget request for fiscal year 1998.
This event, while not directly related to approval of the
Council's position on separate agencies, does provide an
opportunity for members of Congress to rais questions about
anything they care about. For that reason, I have prepared the
letter which follows to be sent to the chairman and all members
of the subcommittee.
Similar communications from each of you and others you can
reach would be helpful. Never mind the fact that your
communications will probably reach the members after the hearing,
scheduled for Thursday afternoon. Letters, faxes, or other
communications which get to committee members later will still do
a great deal of good. The actual appropriations bill will not
actually be prepared until sometime in May or early June. At
that time Committee members may want to take the National
Council's position on blind services into account in deciding on
the appropriations amount for the next year. Therefore, they
need to continue to hear from people who feel that the position
is unwarranted and unacceptable.
Aside from the appropriations matter, which in some ways is
not directly on point, the real issue is what could happen to the
law on separate agencies for the blind when the Congress gets
down to work on reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act later
this spring. At that time, the recommendation of the National
Council on Disability will be before the authorizing committees
in the House and the Senate which have the power to change the
law or let it alone. I will provide more information concerning
this aspect of the issue before us in a subsequent communication
to you.
The committees involved in consideration of the
reauthorization of the rehabilitation act are the House Committee
on Education and the Work Force and the Senate committee on Labor
and Human Resources. We will need to begin the process of
contacting the members of these committees quite soon.
Meanwhile, it would certainly be helpful to begin the effort to
defeat the National Council's proposal by contacting the members
of the House appropriations subcommittee. Their names and
contact information are provided after the text of a letter which
I am sending on behalf of the Federation. Information on the
authorizing committees and some thoughts on what to say will come
later.
All of us should remember that the National Council's
recommendation to phase out separate agencies for the blind has
no particular value or validity on its own. Most of the members
of Congress have never heard of the National Council on
Disability. However, most of them are aware of the National
Federation of the Blind. The final decision as to whether or not
the Council's recommendation begins to amount to anything other
than the paper it is written on will be made by the Congress
through the political process. In that arena the National
Council on Disability should take a lesson from others who have
tried to take us on in the past and not succeeded. Even so, a
response must be made, and that is what we must be about right
now.
Please do what you can to get the word out on this, but
remember that those who do not wish us well have no particular
need to receive our arguments from us. That is by way of saying
that care ought to be taken in the further redistribution of this
and related e-mail messages. This is an area in which blindness
and disability sharply diverge. Enough said. Let's go to work.
The letter text and member list follows:
Dear Chairman Porter:
A Presidentially appointed federal disabilities panel is
preparing to recommend a new mandate against state discretion in
the administration and funding of services to the blind. The
panel, known as the National Council on Disability, receives an
annual appropriation under the funding bill for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related
agencies.
Under the Council's proposal, states would be forced to
adopt a single-agency service model, rather than having a
"commission for the blind" or similar specialized program. The
twenty-six states with laws on the books for serving the blind
would have to conform to the Council's approach or lose support
for all rehabilitation programs. States would also be required
to phase out targeted services to older blind people.
While as a federal agency the National Council on Disability
is certainly authorized to issue reports on matters affecting
disability policy, it is the responsibility of members of
Congress to evaluate the Council's work as it may effect a
state's discretionary powers. Also, the actions of a federal
agency are certainly proper matters to be raised in the annual
appropriations process, especially if the authority of states to
design their programs is being abridged by the federal agency in
question.
The recommendation for a federal mandate against agencies
serving the blind is the result of an effort being made to
diminish the visibility and independent status of blindness
services in favor of a generic approach to disability.
Unfortunately, the disabilities Council has chosen to become
involved on one side of this issue, rather than following the
well-settled Congressional policy of deferring to the states.
I am bringing this matter to your attention at this time in
view of the National Council's appearance for its annual
appropriations hearing scheduled for today. If you would like
more information to raise questions pertaining to this matter in
any way, I will be happy to help you obtain it. Meanwhile, thank
you for considering this issue and the significance it has for
blind people.
Having the specialized services available that are now
provided through state and federal programs is of critical
importance to us. Please join us in helping to see that these
programs are able to continue.
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
Related Agencies
John Edward Porter; IL; 202-225-4832--CHAIRMAN
C. W. Bill Young; FL; 202-225-5961; FAX: 202-225-9764
Henry Bonilla; TX; 202-225-4511
Ernest Jim Istook; OK; 202-225-2132; FAX: 202-226-1463
E-mail: istook@hr.house.gov
Dan Miller; FL; 202-225-5015; FAX: 202-226-0828
Jay Dickey; AR; 202-225-3772; FAX: 202-225-1314
E-mail: jdickey@hr.house.gov
Anne Northup; KY; 202-225-5401
Roger Wicker; MS; 202-225-4306; FAX: 202-225-3549
E-mail: rwicker@hr.house.gov
David R. Obey; WI; 202-225-3362--RANKING
Louis Stokes; OH; 202-225-7032; FAX: 202-225-1339
Steny H. Hoyer; MD; 202-225-4131
Nancy Pelosi; CA; 202-225-4965
Nita M. Lowey; NY; 202-225-6505; FAX: 202-225-0546
E-mail: nitamail@hr.house.gov
Rosa DeLauro; CT; 202-225-3661
David Andrews (dandrews@visi.com)
or BBS: (telnet to nfbnet.org) or call (612) 696-1975
Net-Tamer V 1.08 - Registered
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:04 PST