ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT ON SALARIES AND EXPENSES We are requesting that the reduction of $223,000 in the House bill be restored to provide the full amount of the estimate, $1,223,000, for fiscal year 1956. It is imperative that this amount be appropriated in order that the Office may render the minimum necessary assistance to the States. The additional responsibilities placed in the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation by the enactment of Public Law 565 include the following: The introduction of training programs, cooperative undertakings with nonprofit organizations, assistance in the establishment of rehabilitation centers and other specialized facilities, services related to the function of the National Advisory Council on Vocational Rehabilitation, giving greater preference to and broadening services to the blind in the operation of vending stand programs, implementation of the "disability freeze" provisions of the Social Security Act, increased emphasis on the placement of the handicapped and the promotion of job opportunities, and greater responsibility for demonstrating to the States the abilities, aptitudes, and capacities of the physically disabled. It is clear that the requirements of the new law make necessary specific changes in our traditional approach to the administration of the vocational rehabilitation program. The role of the Office is much greater in scope. The broad new responsibilities I have outlined require the development of an organization and the procedures necessary to assure the maintenance, strengthening, and improvement of the vocational rehabilitation program. To fulfill our obligation in the Federal-State effort, substantial changes in the functions and activities of the Office are necessary. The many new activities require the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation to develop a more effective program of administration, training, and public education. We must assume responsibility for, and provide the leadership necessary, to make this expanded program successful. For many years we have had no increases in salaries and expenses until the current year, when a supplemental appropriation was provided. In fact, we have been having a slow attrition, and have been more or less static for the last 5 years. This is the first major increase we have requested, and it is related directly and completely to our responsibilities under the new law; it is an effort to staff up to what our best estimate is of what we need to make the President's program effective. Every day we are asked for assistance by the States and are unable to provide services we know of our need for increased staff. To meet these requests we must employ the requisite number and type of specialists to assist the States in the many areas of disability including the blind, hard of hearing, mentally retarded, and other severely disabled categories. In addition, it is essential that staff be available to assist the States in solving organizational and developmental problems resulting from the broadened program. GENERAL STATEMENT Senator HILL. Miss Switzer? Miss SWITZER. I am going to make my presentation as short as I I know you are under great pressure, you know about our programs, so I don't have to draw you any diagrams or pictures. can. GRANTS TO STATES We have three items that we are appealing. The first one is grants to States and other agencies. That is our big appropriation, in which we are appealing two items. One does not involve any increase in appropriations, and the other does. The one that is all important to the effective functioning of our program next year as it expands under the new law, is to get a technical amendment to the appropriation language, which is, I admit a rather complex point to explain. Our objective has been to get the States to go forward as fast as possible under the authorizations that Congress passed in the new law. With that object in mind, we recommended an allocation base of $36 million for basic service and support grants under section 2 of the law, which was requested in the budget estimate. In order to have every State get Federal dollars commensurate with what they have already said they could put up, we need to have that allocation base of $36 million. But the House allowance in our appropriation request for section 2 grants of $30 million appears adequate, provided we get the $32,500,000 allocation base in the language raised to $36 million. That is an all-important thing. MATCHING OF STATE FUNDS Now, if that is not done, 24 States will be unable to secure the full matching of their State funds. We have prepared a table which shows the comparison of what the allotments would be under the $36 million base requested and the allotments under the $32,500,000 base provided in the House bill. You will see that unless we have the larger allotment base, the amount recommended by the House cannot be picked up, and the States will lose the money indicated in the right-hand column of this statement. (The table referred to follows:) Estimated support grants, 1956, under sec. 2 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act1 1 Col. 1 shows the estimated grants to be made if allotments are computed on the basis of the $36 million shown in the appropriation language change requested in the Federal budget. Col. 2 shows the estimated grants to be made if allotments are computed on the basis of the $32.5 million allowed in the appropriation language passed by the House. Col. 3 shows the loss to individual States of allotting on the basis of $32.5 million instead of $36 million. The data on State funds used in computing the estimated grants are as of Mar. 4, 1955. 2 Amounts requested from State legislatures are sufficient to earn full sec. 2 allotment based on $36 million. (Nevada included although it is short by $249.) ALLOCATION BASE Miss SWITZER. Now let me emphasize again that this change in the allocation base does not mean any increase in dollars to be appropriated. But if we do not get it, all of the money that has been recommended by the House may not be used, and we want to get the benefit of the money that has been appropriated or will be appro priated during this year, which is a big legislative year in most of the States. It has been so encouraging to me, and I know to everyone interested, to see how far ahead the States have gone. It is really phenomenal. Senator POTTER. And you would need to have that done in order to carry out the act of last year. Miss SWITZER. Absolutely. SPECIAL PROJECTS REQUEST Now, we also are requesting that the reduction of $2,500,000 in the special projects appropriation request-that is under section 4 of the law-be restored. This amount is in two parts, $1,200,000 for expansion grants, which was a special authorization of the new law effective only for 2 years, 1955 and 1956, and the great advantage to that part of the program in this past year, and as planned for next year, is the flexibility that it gives the States to tool up faster than they otherwise would, and to make grants to nonpublic agencies and cooperating community groups; and, at the end of 2 years, we will have a wonderful story to tell of the enlargement of the potential for rehabilitation services. And then we are requesting restoration of $1,300,000 for the special projects, the unique special projects, which are the ones recommended by our advisory council. Because we want to get new ideas, new information, and new knowledge as fast as possible. And we feel that to develop that research program is all-important. Those are our main points on the grants appropriation. That is brief, but I think it hits the highlights. REHABILITATION CENTERS Senator POTTER. Do any of your special projects include rehabilitation centers? Miss SWITZER. Yes, and a number of the special expansion projects include quite a few additions to rehabilitation centers, pretty well scattered over the country. Do you have a list of those? The Senator might want them. (The list referred to follows:) |