expended for vocational rehabilitation in 1955, compared with $23 million for the current year. S. 2873, now before the Senate, would repeal this restrictive language. Inasmuch as the language referred to would become effective July 1, 1954, and many States are in a quandary, not knowing how to plan their programs for 1955, we strongly urge the committee to report out favorably this bill without delay, even before it has time to report S. 2759. It would be ironic, indeed, if, at the time this committee is considering an expansion of vocational rehabilitation services, appropriation law language should be undermining the present program, already inadequate to meet the needs of the handicapped. Federal allotments and State matching for vocational rehabilitation services in 1954 compared with projection for 1957 under S. 2759. (This is the first year the full effect of change of methods of financing is felt. A Federal appropriation of $23 million is assumed for both years) Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, the National Rehabilitation Association was organized in 1925 and continuously since that time has been preaching the doctrine that rehabilitation is the answer to the problem of disability in most instances. It was the chief sponsor of Public Law 113 of the 78th Congress, which is the present basic rehabilitation law, and since 1949 has had before Congress other measures to expand rehabilitation programs. The bills specifically sponsored by this organization at this time are S. 2436 and S. 2437 by Senator Potter, which are very similar in purpose and in much of the detail to the proposals of the President upon which these hearings have been specifically called. We want to say in the beginning that we have appreciated a great deal the tremendous amount of time and effort which has been expended by the officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Mrs. Hobby and Mr. Rockefeller particularly, in an effort to understand the implications of rehabilitation and to try to come forward with constructive suggestions to the Congress for the expansion of this work. We are very grateful, of course, that the conclusions they have come to are that rehabilitation is sound, both socially and economically, actually saving taxpayers' money rather than being a drain upon the Treasury; that present efforts to rehabilitate the handicapped are not adequate; and finally that both the Federal Government and the States can afford to increase their financial investment in the rehabilitation of crippled people. The President's personal interest in the problem of the rehabilitation of the handicapped has encouraged all of us who have been working so long in this field in attempting to do some of the things which we now see at the point of fruitation, so we are very grateful for the consideration that is being given this matter. Mr. Chairman, over the last few years I have attended and participated in a number of hearings on rehabilitation legislation, and as a result of my experience in those hearings I feel that I understand, at least generally speaking, shall we say, the areas of agreement and the areas wherein there may be disagreement with respect to specific proposals that are being made. For instance, I know that there is no quarrel among any people with respect to the fact that rehabilitation is economically and socially sound. Everyone is agreed upon that. Everyone is also agreed upon the fact that there are many more handicapped people who could profit from rehabilitation than are being served at the present time. It is also generally agreed that the rehabilitation of the handicapped is both a State and a Federal responsibility and that both of these organizations should assist in bearing the load. There is also rather general agreement that the State-Federal rehabilitation program as it now exists is sound, and although there may be criticisms of the program coming from some sources, they generally are with respect to the fact that the State agencies are not able to serve all of the people who apply to them rather than being more fundamental. Now, while we have these areas of agreement, there are some areas in which all people do not agree. For instance, there is not agreement with respect to how rehabilitation should be administered on the Federal level. There are some people, for instance, who think that it should be administered in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, as it is now. There are those who think it should be transferred to the United States Department of Labor. There are others who think that an independent commission, responsible directly to the President, should be organized in order to administer rehabilitation. There are also differences of opinion with respect to just how the program should be financed; that is, what share should be provided for by the Federal Government and what share by the States and what ratios of Federal matching and allotments should prevail. And there may be some difference of opinion, while I do not think this is quite serious, with respect to how completely the rehabilitation agency should act as agencies emphasizing the vocational aspects of rehabilitation as opposed to the total concept of rehabilitation; that is, whether a person is ever going to be able to work or not as a result of the efforts that are made for it. Now, during the remainder of my statement I want to discuss the bills themselves, the specific bills that are before your committee, with emphasis upon the areas where I think problems exist that the committee has to resolve, instead of giving you orally here now a lot of material with respect to which I think there is general agreement and which you probably will hear repeated many times during the course of this testimony. First I wish to speak briefly about S. 2758, which is the administration's bill which would expand the Hospital Survey and Construction Act to make Federal funds available to assist the States in a number of new areas, and I am particularly concerned, of course, with the area of rehabilitation facilities. I want to say that we support without reservation the bill as it was passed by the House of Representatives, so far as it pertains to rehabilitation facilities. The only thing that is in the House bill that is not in the Senate bill is a provision that 1 State can assign its allotment of funds to another State for the creation of a regional facility which could serve the handicapped in more than 1 State. We think this is fundamentally sound. In fact, we testified in support of that amendment in the House of Representatives, and so we hope you will incorporate that in the bill as you report it. Although we agree with the House bill, there are 2 or 3 factors that are so important that I want to emphasize them briefly, for I feel that these matters may come up before your commitee. In the first place, we urge the retention of the earmarked fund for rehabilitation facilities. Senator PURTELL. May I interrupt? The points you are covering now are also covered in your paper, are they not? Mr. WHITTEN. Yes. Senator PURTELL. Are these additions to it? Mr. WHITTEN. No; they are not additions to it. They are just points of emphasis that I want to make. I have covered most of them in much more detail in the paper. Senator PURTELL. Yes, I realize that. Mr. WHITTEN. So we urge the continuation of earmarked funds for rehabilitation facilities. We also urge the retention of the defi 46293-54-pt. 2- -5 nition of a rehabilitation center that is found in the bill because it is a comprehensive definition that will allow the type of facility which we think is very badly needed. Now, in that connection I would say that some questioning of witnesses, when this bill was being considered, seemed to infer that new legislation is not needed for the creation of rehabilitation facilities, that this could be done under the present bill, if interpretations were more liberal. It is our opinion that the comprehensive rehabilitation center cannot be built under the present definition of a hospital found in the Hospital Survey and Construction Act. A department of physical medicine in a teaching hospital or a wing of a hospital devoted to rehabilitation cases might be constructed under the bill, but a rehabilitation center that encompasses the vocational aspects of rehabilitation as well the medical cannot be built under the present legislation. In fact, I think it is significant that some of the outstanding rehabilitation facilities in the country today, notably, for instance, the Institute for the Crippled and Disabled in New York and the Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center at Fisherville, Va., neither could have been built under the present legislation. We also would call attention to the fact that the $10 million a year, while it sounds like a good deal of money for rehabilitation facilities, doesn't go far when you divide it up among 48 States. For instance, Connecticut's share would be $73,000, which will not build very many rehabilitation facilities for that State, even with State matching. I shall now shift to a consideration of S. 2759, which is the bill that I understand these hearings are principally directed at. As you know, this bill is a substitute for the entire present rehabilitation law and not just amendments thereto. There are several features of this bill that we want to call attention to at this time. In the first place, I am going to say just briefly with respect to the administration of vocational rehabilitation at the Federal level that we feel very strongly that the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation is properly placed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We do believe, however, that its influence and general operational efficiency could be increased, if it were given bureau status, similar, for instance, to what was done in S. 4051, which passed the Senate in 1950, but was not considered by the House. As it is now, the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation is strictly a creature of the Secretary and could even be abolished and the functions scattered among the various bureaus, if the Secretary thought that should be done; so we think that bureau status would be helpful, but other than that we have no suggestions to offer with respect to change on the Federal level. In our statement we have gone into some detail with respect to why we feel that way, but we are not taking time here to go any further into this in the oral statement. Next, we would call attention to the bill as pertains to administration at the State level. As you know, at the present time vocational rehabilitation in the State is administered by State boards for vocational education, with the exception that in States which have agencies for the blind with a legal responsibility for rehabilitating the blindthe rehabilitation of the blind can be carried on in these agencies, which really means there are two rehabilitation agencies in States where that arrangement exists. Now in S. 2759 there are 2 or 3 important changes suggested in the administration setup of the States. One, for instance, would provide for 2 State plans in States having 2 rehabilitation agencies, so that, for instance, the State agency for the blind would not have to do its business with the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation through the State board for vocational education. We approve that change. Second, it is provided in S. 2759 that the State board for vocational education or a rehabilitation agency primarily concerned with rehabilitation may administer the program in the States, and we are approving that change, for we believe it is sound that if a State cares enough about its rehabilitation program to feel it can be advanced through an independent agency, we believe it should be allowed to take this step. I might add here, Mr. Chairman, that we would oppose opening the administration of rehabilitation in the States any further than that. In other words, we don't want a situation where a jurisdictional dispute could come to exist at the State level such as we have had for several years on the Federal level. There are sound reason why rehabilitation is being administered by State boards for vocational education, but we do not object to provisions for an alternative State rehabilitation agency. Another thing we are somewhat concerned about, is that in this administrative section as it pertains to the States, the words "administer or supervise the administration of" are substituted for the words "administration, supervision, and control" in the present act. We are told that the reason for that is to enable a State agency to supervise a local rehabilitation program which is financed in whole or in part by local rehabilitation funds, and we approve that concept. Our attention, though, has been directed to the fact that the same language might be used as a justification for breaking down the rehabilitation program at a State level, so the State board of education could supervise the administration of rehabilitation in several different departments; for instance, physical restoration in one, training in another, and so forth, and we feel that we need more unity rather than less in the program. That being a problem, we are going to present to the committee right away some language which we think will accomplish the administration's purpose, but which will not have this possible danger in it. Senator PURTELL. Is that contained in your field statement? Mr. WHITTEN. It is not. It will be filed as a separate statement. Senator PURTELL. It will be received and incorporated in the record. (The statement by Mr. E. B. Whitten above referred to is as follows:) AMENDMENTS TO S. 2759 Designed to prevent breaking up administration of vocational rehabilitation. |