5. One word about the mechanics of the matter. Removal of the ceiling would require an additional section in the bill. We would leave the placement to your judgment. Third, we should like to see a provision in the Act for a National Center for the Homebound. reasons. Over the years, as I have seen the gains made in building opportunities for the handicapped, I have thought: "yes, but these do not pertain to the homebound." And I have seen gains in rehabilitation, and thought: "yes, but these do not pertain to the homebound." I think it's time the homebound stopped being the "shadow people" of our society. For too many generations, they really have been "out of sight, out of mind." There are more than 2,000,000 of them. They are in dire financial need, most of them. Yet there is every indication that they can become self-sufficient; they can leave the welfare rolls; they can become contributors to, rather than consumers of, American tax revenues. This already has been demonstrated by the Federally-funded demonstration projects that have attempted to bring them into the nation's A National Center for the Homebound could demonstrate on a large scale, to every State and every city, that improved techniques of rehabilitation can bring independence to the homebound. 6 The National Center, by working closely with public and private agencies, could give impetus to the rehabilitation of these people so long neglected. The President's Committee strongly endorses the propsed National Center for the Homebound. It is long overdue. Fourth and finally, we should like to see a provision in the act for a system of Federal payments supplementing the incomes that certain handicapped people in sheltered workshops are able to earn by their own efforts. These, of course, are people whose productivity is so low, because of their disabilities, that they cannot hope to earn anything near the minimum wage. Yet we know we cannot stop there and claim we have done all we can for them. Their expenses of living go on, the same as ours. Their needs for the minimums of life go on, the same as ours. Perhaps their needs are greater than ours, because of their disabilities. It is time that America recognized their needs, and supplemented their incomes to bring their wages up to existing minimums. These levels, I might point out, are not far from the poverty levels for our country. of course, there would have to be safeguards. These handicapped people would have to be in an "employee" status in the workshop, rather than a "trainee" status. They would have to be employed full-time. Certification would have to be made that they are producing at their highest level of skill and earning power. They would have to be reviewed periodically regarding their potential for outside employment. Along with such a program would come national recognition of a right to live a halfway decent life right to have a roof over your head and bread to eat. These, then, are my four suggestions for the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments - funding of Governors' Committees on Employment of the Handicapped; removal of the ceiling on expenditures of the President's Committee; a National Center for the Homebound; a system of wage supplements for severely handicapped persons in workshops. Thank you for your attention. 6/1972 Senator CRANSTON. We now have a panel of witnesses composed of Ed Carney, board of directors, Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf, accompanied by John T. Crandall, special assistant for legislation; Joy York, administrative secretary-interpreter; George Fellendorf, executive director, Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf; and Willis Man, assistant to the executive secretary, National Association of the Deaf. I appreciate very much your appearing as a panel, which makes it easy for us to direct questions to you. If it can be possible to summarize your prepared statement, the prepared statements will go into the record fully. Mr. Carney, do you want to proceed? STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. CARNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DEAF, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN T. CRANDALL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGISLATION; JOY YORK, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY-INTERPRETER; GEORGE FELLENDORF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF; AND WILLIS MANN, ASSISTANT TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am appreciative of the opportunity afforded me to appear before you today to discuss the vocational rehabilitation amendments of 1972 and legislation affecting the lives of handicapped people. The Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf is strongly consumer-oriented and is composed of 28 organizations whose activities are directly related to the vocational, social, educational, economic, and cultural advancement of deaf persons. Included in the active members are every national organization of or for the deaf except one, and specifically includes the Professional Rehabilitation Workers With the Adult Deaf. Associate membership is open to groups not nationally organized but which in some manner are concerned with problems of deafness. Included among the latter are the Deafness Research Foundation, The National Grange, The National Rehabilitation Association, and New York University Deafness Research and Training Center. Aggregate individual memberships represented by this Council exceed 800,000 professionals and laymen. Established in 1967, the Council has, as one of its prime functions, the responsibility of presenting a concensus of opinion from the deaf community to honorable bodies such as this whose activities can have profound and lasting effects on the lives of handicapped people. Other witnesses undoubtedly already have, or later will, provide the members of this subcommittee with analysis in depth of those portions of the legislation under consideration with which they are most familiar. The Council will confine its testimony to matters related to the concerns of its members, but would first like to express its support generally, with the provisions of H.R. 8395. We are pleased that the legislation provides for the establishment of centers to assist low achieving deaf persons. However, we trust that the wording will be revised to include a specific appropriation for these badly needed facilities. As presently proposed, no specific amounts are authorized and past experience leads us to believe that unless the intent of the Congress is clearly defined in the laws, the ultimate decision as to what amounts of supportive funds may be necessary is made by persons not nearly as well informed as members of this subcommittee, and the programs suffer accordingly. Without attempting to give details of our reasons other than that we are of the opinion they will greatly enhance the delivery of services to all handicapped persons, we especially support those features of the pending legislation which would provide for minimum allotments to States under title I, advance funding for all titles, and broadening the base of rehabilitative processes to include a number of handicapped groups not heretofore eligible for services. We join other groups in recommending that the appropriation authority for title III, Comprehensive Services for the Severely Handicapped, be increased to $50 million for the first year, $80 million for the second year, and $100 million for the third year. We respectfully suggest that the Senate subcommittee give earnest consideration to restoring to this act the comprehensive phrasing of part B-Services to the Deaf-of title III as originally submitted to the House by Congressman Perkins on behalf of himself and 23 assocites. We have been distressed that the House Committee on Education and Labor saw fit to delete this part entirely. As consumers, we had anticipated that, for the first time in history, there would be comprehensive service programs and funds specifically earmarked for the amelioration of the complex problems of severe and profound deafness. While provisions of many parts of the laws now under consideration will be of assistance to deaf persons in the routine carrying out of rehabilitation programs, historically the deaf have ended up with the "short end of the stick," as it were, when grouped with other handicapped clients of rehabilitation programs. Deafness is not a visible handicap and in consequence its inherent problems are less well understood. The frustrating communication barriers, along with other complicating factors, all too frequently have caused rehabilitation personnel to use available funds to assist clients who are less difficult to serve. It may come as something of a surprise and shock to you to learn that there is no legal definition of deafness. There long has been a legal definition of blindness, and of course, with many other handicapping conditions the disability is readily perceptible to the observer. The section we hope will be restored would require that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare promulgate regulations setting forth definitions to serve as a legal base in determining who shall be considered a deaf person. Additionally, this deleted section set forth in precise detail never before included in any type of legislation descriptions of the sundry types of services needed and to be provided for deaf persons. These included diagnostic study to determine type and degree of hearing loss, comprehensive evaluation of pertinent audiological, medical, psychological, social, and other factors bearing on the individual's handicap and rehabilitation potential. It lists in depth the services to the deaf |