Page images

Alarmingly enough, our best estimates are that state Rehabilitation Agencies are able to serve only one out or every twenty people who are eligible, due to a total lack of resources.

In FY 1990, 68.3 percent of all individuals served by State Rehabilitation Agencies are described as being "severely disabled" by the Federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). In carrying out the mandate of the Act to give priority of service to the rehabilitation of individuals who are severely disabled, State Agencies have found that the costs in time, effort, and money for services

much greater than the cost of rehabilitating people less severely disabled, greater by over 50 percent.


At the same time, it is alarming to note that the purchasing power of the Federal Rehabilitation Appropriation has remained virtually stagnant since 1980. According to the Congressional Research Service, it increased by only 1.8 percent from 1980 to 1988.

This means that the Program is serving fewer people, while expending more money for services, staff training, equipment, and facilities.

With these statistics in mind, the Council strongly urges that the Congress provide Federal appropriations for Basic State Vocational Rehabilitation Services in the amount of $2,500,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1992.

A recent CSAVR Survey of all State Rehabilitation Agencies found that with a Congressional appropriation of $2,500,000,000 million for FY 1992, an additional 501,372 people with disabilities will receive these vital rehabilitation services.

The Survey also shows that the States clearly have the ability to match, and effectively use, these valuable service monies.

The justification for higher funding levels stems from the purpose for which the money is spent--the prevention of an incalculable waste of human potential, a purpose on which no price tag can be placed.

Appropriating additional monies for Vocational Rehabilitation Services reduces the Federal Deficit.

Over the decades, Vocational Rehabilitation has more than paid for itself by helping persons with disabilities increase their earning capacity; by freeing family members to work, and/or by decreasing the amount of welfare payments, health services, and social services they might need; as well as by assisting them to become taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that "a reduction of funds for rehabilitation... would generate increases in other parts of the federal and state budgets." Funds appropriated for Vocational Rehabilitation

sound investment of the Public's money.




The Rehabilitation Act is recognized as the most complete and wellbalanced piece of legislation in the human services field. In addition to the Basic State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program, the Act contains provisions for (1) an innovation and expansion program; (2) a training program; (3) a research program;

(4) a comprehensive services for independent living program; (5) a supported employment program; and, among others, (6) special projects and demonstration efforts.

The CSAVR strongly supports adequate funding for all Sections of the Act, and wholeheartedly joins with the recommendations provided this Subcommittee by other organizations and Advocates.


FY 1991

(in millions)

(in millions)

Basic State Grants


[blocks in formation]

Supported Employment
Rehabilitation Training
Independent Living, Part A,
Comprehensive State Services
Independent Living, Part B,
Centers for Independent Living
Independent Living, Part c,
Services for older Blind Ind.
Independent Living, Part D,
Protection and Advocacy
Client Assistance
Special Demonstrations
Projects with Industry
Special Recreation
Nat. Institute for Disability

and Rehabilitation Research National Council on Disability

[blocks in formation]

Senator HARKIN. Elmer, thank you very much, especially for all of the effort you had to go through to get down here from Massachusetts. At least we had some nice weather for you down here.

How long have you been commissioner of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission?

Mr. BARTELS. I have served in that position for 14 years, State director, and we have really done some wonderful things in the context of the Rehabilitation Act and then some State programs we have been able to build around the act, where the public program was the core and some State-funded programs became support to it. It shows how valuable the Rehabilitation Act could be as a public program nationally for implementing public policy in helping people with disabilities to live independently and go to work. But it is also a leadership program back in the States. We build things around it with State moneys.

Senator HARKIN. I keep pointing out as you probably heard the witness earlier kept talking about the bottom line, the bottom line is that while this may cost money to provide these different types of services, people become independent, you are a perfect example of it, you go out and get a job and work, be a taxpayer, take care of a family. I have seen it happen time and time again. A small

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

infusion of funds for these services enhance the quality of life for those with disabilities, for rehabilitation efforts.

And yet you say we are serving what? One out of twenty?
Mr. BARTELS. One out of twenty.
Senator HARKIN. One out of twenty who are eligible right now.

Mr. BARTELS. We did a quick study in Massachusetts. We have about 200,000, 250,000 people of working age with disabilities. Each year we have about 20,000 referrals come to our agency. We serve about 32,000. We know that there are people out there to be served. We do not have the counselor power and the purchase of service power to buy services for the people that are there.

Senator HARKIN. A lot of times they get so discouraged. I know disabled people in Iowa and all over the country. A lot of times they go out, they get so discouraged. That is why the ADA is trying to open up the doors, trying to get early childhood

intervention programs for those disabled early in life. After a while you get so discouraged in terms of transportation, communications, and discrimination at the job site, after a while you just tend to forget about it.

Mr. BARTELS. I think the leadership, Mr. Chairman, you provided within the Senate and in working with the administration in creating the Americans With Disabilities Act_provides us some legal standing in that regard and the promise. The promise we got to deliver on.

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars in this country on dependency, in the Social Security program, the Medicaid program, Medicare program. If we could turn those dollars into investment programs in people with disabilities, I think we could reap the harvest of their potential.

We have done investing, for instance, in the savings and loan bail out. We have invested in the people who, in fact, provided their life savings into those institutions. In the war in the Persian Gulf, we invested in peace in our times and peace in the future. If we can do that with billions of dollars, we certainly can provide an investment for our people with disabilities in this country to live independently and go to work.

Senator HARKIN. You say we spend hundreds of billions every year on dependency programs?

Mr. BARTELS. We certainly do.
Senator HARKIN. Very little on independency programs.

Mr. BARTELS. In the Rehabilitation Act, we are asking for $2.5 billion when we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on dependency.

Senator HARKIN. I would like to get a listing of all those dependency programs, just sort of get a laundry list of dependency programs.

Mr. BARTELS. Start with the Social Security program. It is important in terms of benefits to help people put bread and butter on the table, but we can also provide vocational rehabilitation services to people who are on Social Security benefits and AFDC benefits, general relief benefits in our States.

It is not just the Federal Government that is paying these billions of dollars on dependency, it is State governments through general relief, AFDC, mental health departments, mental retarda

[ocr errors]

tion departments. If we can have people working, they are healthier. They are happier. They are independent. They are paying taxes. They are useful citizens.

Senator HARKIN. You have given me something to think about. I appreciate that very much. You are a great example of what it means to persevere.

Mr. BARTELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again for the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Senator HARKIN. Thank you for being way in front of the curve for a long time. Thanks.

I look forward to working with you in the future on these programs.

Mr. BARTELS. I am here. So are the other State directors.


ERATION OF AMERICA Senator HARKIN. Next is Theresa Scheetz, Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania representing the planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Theresa, welcome to the subcommittee. Your statement will be made a part of the record.

Ms. SCHEETZ. Thank you very much, Chairman Harkin.

For over 25 years I have been a board member of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. I am also a past president of Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Affiliates, the statewide organization.

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in place of its president Faye Wattleton, who was unable to be here.

It is an honor to testify before this subcommittee in support of title x

Since 1970, as you know, title X has served as the mainstay of our national family planning effort. Title X is a program that works. It provides needed health care services. It prevents unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. It effectively addresses teenage pregnancy. And title X is cost effective.

A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that every public dollar spent to provide contraceptive services saves an average of $4.40 in taxpayer funds that otherwise would be allocated toward medical care, welfare, and other mandated social services. An overall total of $1.8 billion in savings annually.

Our State of Pennsylvania illustrates the need and value of federally supported family planning programs. In 1985 there were 16,350 pregnancies involving young women 17 years and younger. In 1987 Pennsylvania had 542,120 teenage and poor women, at risk for unintended pregnancy. In 1988 Pennsylvania had 11,417 low birth weight babies and 1,643 infant deaths. Yet, despite this need for family planning services and the accomplishments and cost savings of the title & program, title X funds for Pennsylvania have been cut over 11 percent over the course of the last decade.

On top of this, Pennsylvania is one of the few States providing no funds for family planning. The critical complement to family planning services for preventing unintended pregnancies and thus reducing the need for abortion is improved contraceptives. Avail

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

able contraceptive methods in this country are woefully inadequate.
This is reflected in the fact that more than one-half of the nearly
6 million pregnancies that occur each year in the United States are
Mr. Chairman, we commend you and

this subcommittee for your wonderful leadership in this area. The funding you directed for the establishment of contraceptive and infertility research centers will lead to the development of safer, more effective methods of contraception.

Title X has taken some hard hits over the last decade. And the need for services has increased and funding has been cut. In addition the Reagan administration issued the gag rule. These regulations forbid doctors and other medical professionals from giving patients objective information or referrals regarding their legal options when facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Congress has spoken on this matter before and we ask that you do so again. We ask you to codify language to overturn the gag rule. By doing so you will ensure that woman receiving care through a title

X facility will get the same range of information as someone receiving care through a private physician.

It is vital that title X funding be increased. Continuing efforts must be made to bring spending for family planning to levels that will ensure the continuation of services now being provided and to reach the millions of women and teenagers in compelling need of our services.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]


[merged small][ocr errors]

We urge you to appropriate $180 million for the title X program for fiscal year 1992, an amount far short of the $239 million we would have reached' had funding continued from 1981 adjusted to inflation.

I thank the Chair and the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify.

[The statement follows:]

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »