A great deal has to be done even to approach a solution to the older workers' employment problems. We, of the Department of Labor, are especially conscious of the need for much more research into the many facets of these problems. There is a great dearth of current and comprehensive data on a number of key points. We need to know more about the actual practices of employers in hiring and separating older workers, and in reassigning superannuated employees. We require more information on the actual work performance of older people. How does the quantity and quality of their work compare with that of younger people? This kind of information for various industries and occupations could indicate the kinds of work for which older persons are best adapted, and least adapted. Once the necessary facts were assembled, it would be possible to develop a comprehensive program for dealing with older workers' employment problems. The establishment and operation of such a program requires the coordinated efforts of all major groups in the community. Although it is not easy to carry through such a project, the returns-both human and economic-should make it well worth while.

Mr. STRACHAN. Mr. Robert C. Goodwin, Director of the Bureau of Employment Security, reported to Secretary Tobin, on the Bureau's job placement and unemployment activities, that in 1949 an estimated $1,700,000,000 was paid out by State employment security agencies to approximately 7,500,000 who had lost their jobs. Incidentally, in the calendar year 1949, payments totaled $790,000,000.

Today, Mr. Chairman, the handicapped are finding it harder and harder to get and hold jobs. That is one reason why we must accelerate the rehabilitation processes to develop the full capacity of the individual physically, so as to be able to compete in the labor market against nonhandicapped.

I do not wish to burden the record any further. I have made this oral statement to try to conform with the committee's desires as to time. But if the committee wishes any further information, I will be pleased to have Mr. Lichtenberg supply it.

I wish again to emphasize one thing. A few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, as you recall, I mentioned the matter of having a chart in preparation which showed the entire activities of the Federal Government in the handicapped field. I regret to state that as of this morning the Government Printing Office had not completed the proof on this. But I believe that every member of the committee should have it, and as quickly as it is completed I shall send it to the committee, for this reason: Not only will you be able to see, and for the first time, the extent of the whole Federal Government functions in this field, but you will see the gradual and, I say, insidious encroachments of public assistance upon other phases of the rehabilitation program.

Now, in my judgment, public assistance, Mr. Chairman, does not produce anything. It is merely a palliative rather than a remedy. And while it has a place, and an important place, in our scheme of government, I insist, Mr. Chairman, that public assistance has no business invading the rehabilitation field, because public assistance obviously is a pay-off agency. It is not one to determine whether or not this is rehabilitation or not rehabilitation. It is obviously the duty of the rehabilitation agencies of the Federal and State Governments to assume this responsibility and carry it out, because surely every member of the committee will agree on one thing: that our first. job is to get people onto their feet so that they can earn a living. Thank you very kindly.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And when you get the chart, will you furnish it to the committee?

Mr. STRACHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have the chart to which Mr. Strachan has made reference, because it might help us to visualize this problem.

Mr. LICHTENBERG. We will be very happy to get it for you, Mr. Chairman, and send it to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your appearance.
Mr. LICHTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STRACHAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schelvis?

You may have a seat, Mr. Schelvis. Will you identify yourself for the record? You are Mr. Albert Schelvis. Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF ALBERT SCHELVIS, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. SCHELVIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Albert Schelvis, a resident of Chicago, Ill. I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before you. I am here as an individual who is totally disabled for the past 10 years and, naturally, take a great interest in the bill now pending before you.

In 1936, when the Social Security Act was passed, there was great consideration given to the aged. Our lawmakers at that time adopted a rule, taking 1937 as a base line and using quarters as a yardstick, to determine the eligibility for old-age benefits. Under this fair rule, it was made possible that an aged person with six quarters minimum at the age of 65 could draw some benefits, or he could work in easy stages, earning only $50 a quarter, until he had enough quarters according to his age, to draw his benefits at the age of 65, but unintentionally they forgot the most destitute people in this country of ours, the totally disabled.

Bill H. R. 6000 and the report of the Senate Advisory Council, now before you, includes a provision of the totally disabled. I would like to give you my version of this bill and what should be done.

I would like you gentlemen to bear in mind that total disability is worse than old age or death. When a person gets old and has no income, he becomes a burden to his family. If a person dies, it is a shock to the family and a loss of income; but if a person becomes totally disabled, it is a shock to the family, a loss of income, and a very expensive burden to his family and relatives for there are medical and doctor bills to be paid in addition to his upkeep.

To corroborate my statement, I would like to give you the facts of a family with two children that I interviewed just a week ago. In 1940 the man of this family, at the age of 32, became a victim of multiple scoliosis, a lateral curvature of the spine, which disabled him for life. His wife and their relatives carried this heavy burden until January of this year when they became so destitute that they tried to get him into some institution. They finally succeeded in getting him into Cook County Old Peoples Home, but not until his brother signed papers that he would pay $20 a month for his support. He is still a burden to the family.

The recommendation of the Advisory Council and H. R. 6000 reads, in part, as follows:

An individual disabled before July 1948 and without quarters of coverage after that date, would not meet the insured status requirements and would not ba eligible for benefits.

If this section would be written into law, it would destroy the sole purpose of the act to prevent destitution and poverty for many years to come as far as the totally disabled are concerned, especially those of middle age now reaching old age. There are many of these unfortunate people who became disabled since 1937 before they could get their requirement status for old-age pension benefits, thereby foregoing all claims to receive any benefits whatsoever. Since the present law has no provision to refund any money and these people and their employers have paid a lot of money into the fund, I sincerely believe that they should be eligible for some benefits. Otherwise they would have paid for something they will not receive, which, in my opinion, is fraudulent.

The Advisory Council and H. R. 6000 also recommend that a person should have a specified amount of quarters preceding their disability to be eligible for benefits. This would be an injustice because it would exclude some people who have paid into the fund. I assume that it would be only fair that anybody who paid into the fund should be eligible for benefits regardless of how long he or she has paid in. Let us look in on a person who signed a contract with an insurance company today and paid his first installment of the premium. He immediately becomes not only eligible for benefits, but they also assume the payments of premiums to protect the future benefits which the policy calls for.

Under the present law, the Social Security Board is entitled to pay benefits not only to the insured man but also to his dependents who, in a majority of cases, never have paid a cent toward the social security fund. I do not begrudge that they are getting some benefit, but it seems so unfair that a person who never paid anything into the fund gets benefits and the person who has paid should be pushed aside. In fairness to all, I believe our lawmakers should make some adjustment to correct the injustice that now exists and make some provision to take care of all the people who became totally disabled since 1937. This could easily be done by making the clause of disability retroactive to 1937.

This is not asking too much for the small group of totally disabled for there must be enough money in this fund since the Advisory Council and H. R. 6000 have recommended to raise the benefits for the people who already receive them and for those who will be eligible in the future.

I may say that our Government is spending billions of dollars abroad to prevent destitution and poverty but has failed to do so in many respects in our own country.

In closing my testimony, I feel that I have expressed the hope and sentiments of all totally disabled people in this country of ours. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Thank you very much. We were very glad to have you appear.
Mr. SCHELVIS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Herbert J. Weber was scheduled as the next witness. He is unable to appear in person but Senator Taylor wishes to file the following statement in lieu of Mr. Weber's appearance. (The statement referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF SENATOR GLEN H. TAYLOR, OF IDAHO, BEFORE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, MARCH 2, 1950, ON S. 2337, THE FULL SOCIAL SECURITY BILL OF 1949

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very happy to appear before you today in support of my bill S. 2337 which would set up a comprehensive system of unemployment and disability benefits and I'd like to make a brief explanation of what the program would do, and why it is needed.

Unemployment, with its resultant loss of income, is one of the greatest threats to our economic system. The prospect of disability or loss of jobs is a constant menace to all workers. It is impossible for them now to have a sense of security. They are confronted continually by the realization that in case of unemploy ment all that can be expected is a temporary pittance insufficient to meet even minimum needs. If a slump comes, those that lose their jobs will receive a few. small payments, after which they must attempt to exist with absolutely no money coming in. This is one of the imperfections of our democracy that must be corrected to provide security for all workers.

Equally important is the disastrous effect such unemployment has on the entire economy. This loss of purchasing power, coming at a time when buying is already dropping off, could be responsible for turning a temporary slump into a serious depression. Another depression would be catastrophic not only to ourselves, but to the entire world, and we must take every possible step to avert it. Enactment of this legislation would mean a stable purchasing power, providing a guaranteed market for industrial and farm products. The knowledge that demand will not drop off would result in continued high production and high employment, maintaining a prosperous economy. Unemployment would consequently remain at a low level, so that the costs of this unemployment compensation program would not be large.

The provisions of the bill can be stated quite briefly and simply. Every person willing to work but unable to secure employment because of disability or lack of job openings is paid 85 percent of his previous weekly earnings until he secures employment. If he is partially disabled and can be employed only at a lower rate because of the disability, payment is made for the earnings loss suffered because of his disability. Complete safeguards are provided in the bill to insure against abuse of the program by workers who refuse suitable employment. Here is the way the program will work. First any person who loses his job can draw compensation amounting to 85 percent of his previous weekly earnings by complying with a few necessary requirements. He must register with the Employment Service and agree to accept any suitable employment offered by the Service or an employer. The term "suitable employment" means a job that he is qualified to hold and which will pay the prevailing wage for that vicinity. He is not forced to accept a job that involves strikebreaking, dangerous working conditions, or similar unreasonable requirements, but must accept any position approved by the Service as suitable for him. If he voluntarily quits such a suitable job without valid reasons, he is ineligible for compensation for a period of 4 months. These provisions are designed to prevent abuse of the system by those who have no desire to work, and at the same time give full protection to the unemployed who are out of work through no fault of their own.

Special provision is made for our elder citizens who have reached the age of 60. They will not be required to continue in the labor market and will receive retirement benefits ranging from 40 percent to 70 percent of previous average earnings, according to the number of their dependents. For example, a man 60 years of age with a dependent wife could receive 60 percent of this previous earnings, allowing them to retire in comfort and live decently for the rest of their days.

Thus, full protection is provided for our working population, regardless of injury, unemployment, sickness, or old age. If a worker loses his job, he will continue to receive 85 percent of his normal income, sufficient to take care of his needs until a job is secured. He must accept any reasonable job offer and cannot refuse to work or quit a job without valid reasons. If he becomes ill, or is injured so that he is physically unable to work, he will receive disability compensation amounting to 85 percent of his previous earnings. All that is needed to establish his disability is a doctor's certificate or examination by the United States Public Health Service. This compensation continues until he is able to work and a job is available for him.

If an employee is partially disabled, and cannot handle his previous work because of the disability, a new job that he is qualified to fill will be given him. Loss in earning power because of his partial disability will be made up by disability payments amounting to 90 percent of the difference in pay resulting from his injury.

Opponents of unemployment insurance have always concentrated on two points the cost of the program and the possibility of men refusing to work. As I have already pointed out, the bill contains strict requirements that unemployed workers accept suitable jobs, and payments are not made to those who voluntarily quit such jobs or refuse to work. Detailed provisions contain guaranties against such abuses.

If a large portion of the population were unemployed or disabled, it is true that the cost would be high. However, with such a program in operation, there could not be much unemployment since the continuation of high purchasing power in the hands of all the people would guarantee a steady demand for both industrial and farm products. Assurance of ready markets would mean continuous high production and full employment, making for a permanently prosperous economy with minimum unemployment.

The bill is the result of years of work, research and study by a former Washington, D. C. economist, Herbert J. Weber, now in Chicago. It is an important part of a complete economic program that Mr. Weber has developed.

The basic difference between an economy of free enterprise without full social security and an economy of free enterprise with full social security is analogous to the basic difference between atomic energy in a bomb and atomic energy in a commercial power plant. Atomic fission in a bomb cumulates to the point of explosion as neutrons from the fission of each atom bombard each surrounding atom. Atomic fission in a commercial power plant maintains its equilibrium because inert material is present in sufficient quantity that the number of neutrons absorbed by the inert material equals the number of neutrons smashing the responsive material.

Without full social security, declines in the sales of an industry or of various industries breed lay-offs while lay-offs automatically decrease purchasing power and decreased purchasing power breeds more lay-offs. With full social security, there is the same kind of compensatory mechanism preventing cumulative layoffs as in a commercial atomic power plant. With full social security, lay-offs don't materially decrease purchasing power and with purchasing power maintained substantially unimpaired there is a transference of patronage from the weakened industry or industries to the products of or to investments in other industries.

Without full social security as without the presence of inert material in an atomic pile, the spark tends to cumulate into an explosion; with full social security as with the presence of inert material in an atomic pile, there is a compensatory action that stops cumulation of the initial spark.

With the Nation's purchasing power kept substantially unimpaired by means of full social security, one cannot construct a plausible hypothetical situation, without a decline in the Nation's productive capacity, in which declining sales of some industries would not result in transference of patronage to the products of or to investments in other industries. I ask the committee's permission to insert in the record of this hearing, at the end of this statement, an analysis of all such types of economic conditions in which declining sales occur in an industry or industries, showing that under each such condition there occurs under full social security a transference of patronage to the products of or to investments in other industries.

Full social security stops cumulative unemployment not only by maintaining the purchasing power of workers laid off from jobs in industries suffering from declining sales. Full social security stops cumulative unemployment also by preventing the lack of balance between savings and investments that curtails total available purchasing power by piling up uninvested idle savings.

Without full social security there is always the possibility that the amount of savings available for safe investments will exceed the amount of safe investments then available for savings. With the amount of savings available for investment being the fruit of industries already established and the amount of investments available for savings depending upon industries being newly established or expanded, there may be at times more savings available for safe investment than safe investments then available for savings. If that occurs, the idle savings pile up as a net decrease in total available purchasing power.