Page images
PDF
EPUB

We submit that the veteran who has ankylosis of a knee has more difficulty in using public transportation and causes more inconvenience to others riding the same transportation than is encountered by the veteran with an amputation above the knee, if you please, but who has a properly fitting appliance. The veteran who has ankylosis of a hip cannot sit on the seat of a trolley car, bus, or passenger coach in a natural position but must sit in a crosswise manner on the seat in order that the fixed thigh will permit him to sit at all.

The present requirement is that the veteran be able to drive his own automobile. With an amputation above the ankle of only one foot, a veteran is furnished an automobile; but we know of at least one case, and there are probably others, in which the veteran suffered a gunshot wound of the neck and has a total paralysis of both arms and both legs. He is denied an automobile because he is unable to drive it. He has been forced to purchase an automobile out of his own funds in order that his wife may take him out of the house for an airing.

It is suggested that the committee may wish to ask the Statistical Division of the Veterans' Administration to furnish the total number of such paralytics.

There has been considerable discussion before this committee as to the amount of money to be appropriated for automobiles. One bill suggests $1,700 and another proposes $1,900.

We take the position that it matters not whether the veteran lives within the city limits of Lansing, Mich., where the Oldsmobile is made; Detroit, where the Ford is built; or any other automobile-manufacturing center where there are no freight rates to be paid, or San Francisco, Calif., Juneau, Alaska, or Honolulu, T. H. A veteran entitled to an automobile is a veteran entitled to an automobile, and freight differentials should be absorbed by the Government. This can easily be done by setting a fixed f. o. b. price. The Government should pay delivery charges. It might be possible to deliver an automobile to a veteran in Michigan for $1,500 or $1,600. In that instance the Government would save money; but to the veteran who lives west of the Rocky Mountains or outside the continental limits of the United States, there would be more cost than $1,700 or $1,900 for the same automobile. They should all be treated exactly alike, and this can only be done by setting a f. o. b. price and the Government absorbing the delivery charges.

A veteran who lives in Michigan can be furnished an automobile with hydromatic drive under the existing law. The veteran who lives on the west coast cannot be furnished with an automobile any more expensive than a Ford. So far as I know, there has been only one sale of an automobile to a veteran outside the United States, and that was in Hawaii, and was a 1938 model second-hand car.

We have not had a bill introduced to cover the aims and purposes that have been set out here, but we will be happy to sit in with the subcommittee to draft a new bill or revise any of the existing bills that the committee may deem most appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert the chart in the record at this point.

Senator BALL. Without objection, it will be included.

(The chart referred to follows:)

[blocks in formation]

Tarsal Amputation: 1-1, Lines of incision for Lisfranc's:

2-2, Pirogoff's: 3-3, Syme's amputation.

Senator BALL. I take it to be your view that any veteran who has lost the use of either leg or foot should be entitled, regardless of whether it is amputated above the ankle or not

Mr. CAMP. That is correct. If he has lost the use of the foot, as determined by the Veterans' Administration, that should be controlling. Then, in addition, the foot-drop cases-that is, a total paralysis of the foot and ankylosis of the knee or the hip-those people are very seriously handicapped in the use of public transportation. Senator BALL. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS KENNEDY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Senator BALL. Do you want to go ahead and tell your story to the committee?

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, sir, I want to refer back to General Bradley's statement that he made in the subcommittee about why he thought that the blind veterans should not have automobiles; and that was because of the rehabilitation purposes that naturally they could not drive themselves, and therefore it would not help them to rehabilitate in any way.

So, when a blind veteran is disabled, he immediately right away is given the thought that he cannot do anything or never will be able to do anything.

In rehabilitation, they teach him to shave himself and take care of his person, and he gets into the part of the training where they teach him a job. A blind veteran naturally cannot drive a car but so far as the job of salesman, for instance, is concerned, which a lot of blind veterans have, they certainly could use a car with a driver. I mean if they are married the wife usually works very closely with them and if they are not married, which a lot of them are not, they would have their mothers or fathers or some relative that certainly could drive them around. There would not be one in a thousand that would have to pay a chauffeur to drive an automobile, and when he comes home in the evening after pounding around downtown, getting back and forth, he gets in the house and he does not feel like having social activities at all because he feels he would have to go through the same grind for something which is known as pleasure. It takes the pleasure out of it when he has to beat his brains against the wall transporting himself around to this place for social engagements, and not only in social life in rehabilitating would it be worth while but because it would be easier for him to get around. He would have more initiative to do things he does not feel like doing now. So I think that insofar as an automobile is concerned, every blind man, whether the Senate gives it to him or not, should have an automobile. It is not a necessity; not something you cannot do without. You can do without it, you can do without a lot of things, but you might just as well take a man's right arm away from him or his cane or his dog or anything, as far as an automobile is concerned, because I certainly could use it and the only objection that I could see, from anyone I have talked to about automobiles for the blind, is because they could not drive themselves, and that is something I think that every blind veteran that you talk to certainly has someone that can drive a car for him and so on.

Senator BALL. Do you have a job, Mr. Kennedy?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I do; as a matter of fact, I just left my job. I was a salesman with a stationery company-stationery and office supplies.

Senator BALL. Did you have somebody drive you around?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, sir; my wife.

Senator BALL. Very well; thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Our next witness is Mr. Salkin.

STATEMENT OF MURRAY SALKIN, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. SALKIN. I do not know what may have been discussed and I am very sorry if we held things up. We had a little difficulty in getting over here-not in getting over here but in getting around after we were here.

My thoughts on the matter are very simple and they go to the effect that I have someone who can drive me around, my wife, my father or mother, and a few friends, but naturally it would be my wife who would be driving me around.

I mentioned Thursday that every step a blind man takes is an adventure. It is an adventure. It takes a definite and distinct effort of will to get a man out of the house to go down to the corner drugstore, and a great many of the blind men prefer not to do it.

In my case, I forced myself to do it until finally it has gotten quite a bit easier for me, but in the matter of getting around downtown, it is no pleasure for me to take a street car and go downtown and very barely know exactly what is going on, and for the purposes of my business I need a car to go out and make collections. I have a magazine business and I sell encyclopedias. Quite often the customer wants to know what he is buying first and a car would definitely be a great advantage to me.

General Bradley mentioned the other day that in his opinion the granting of cars would not be an asset to the blind. To boil his story right down, it seemed to me that if what they wanted to train us for was to put obstacles in our way, they do not have to because nature has already done enough of that.

I would be very glad to answer any type question that you gentlemen would care to put to me.

Senator BALL. Do you have a car now, Mr. Salkin?

Mr. SALKIN. Yes, sir; I went ahead and I bought one. It is nothing but a little heap, but it runs and I will have to make it do for awhile. I cannot quite afford to buy a new one.

Senator BALL. Of course, this is a one-car proposition as it is now and I think all these provisions provide. You feel once you got used to a car you would want to keep one. You figure you would be able to finance a replacement of it every 7 years?

Mr. SALKIN. Yes, sir, I do, because it would allow me a couple or 3 or 4 years to maintain a financial equilibrium.

Senator BALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Salkin and Mr. Kennedy. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9:30 a. m. tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 11 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 9:30 a. m., Tuesday, May 13, 1947.)

FURNISHING AUTOMOBILES TO DISABLED VETERANS

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1947

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a. m., in the committee room, Capital Building, Senator Wayne Morse (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Morse (presiding), Jenner, and Ives.

There was present before the subcommittee Hon. Edith Nourse Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts. Senator MORSE. The hearing will come to order.

I think we will proceed this morning to hear as our first witness Mr. H. P. Adams, executive secretary, Blinded Veterans Association, New York City. Mr. Adams.

STATEMENT OF H. P. ADAMS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, we felt that the original bill, Public 663, Seventy-ninth Congress, contained an inequality as far as the blinded amputee was concerned.

Senator MORSE. In what respect?

Mr. ADAMS. In that they were left out of the bill and could not get any benefits from its provisions.

Senator MORSE. That is bill No. 663?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Senator MORSE. That is the automobile bill?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, that is the old bill.

Mrs. Rogers introduced the bill in Congress which pleased us very much.

Senator MORSE. Which incorporates the blind veterans?

Mr. ADAMS. Yes.

Mrs. ROGERS. May I interrupt just a minute? I think the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. McMahon) introduced one in the Senate. We introduced companion bills. We drafted it together in the office. Mr. ADAMS. That was No. 555.

Senator MORSE. Is there any statement that you want to make in support of the bill other than that you are in favor of it?

Mr. ADAMS. The bill S. 555 would suit our purpose very well. It is a companion bill, as Mrs. Rogers said, to your bill in Congress. Senator MORSE. What arguments against the bill are you aware of and what are your answers to those arguments, if you have any?

« PreviousContinue »