Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you. I am in agreement with you on this matter. I wish to make this point as a clarification.

Mrs. PETERSON. Yes. Senator RANDOLPH. Now in the same bill (H.R. 10721) we think in terms of section 7(b) that amends the section 10 of our Federal Employees Compensation Act by adding a new paragraph, designated "(M)", to the guidelines that would be issued under a broad definition of educational institutions. The Department of Labor as I understand it has responded to this subject matter during the House hearings?

Mrs. PETERSON. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. I found that on pages 22 and 23 of the House hearings that matter was discussed. I presume that the Department of Labor has that viewpoint today as it did during the hearings in the House but I think we would want to State the position again.

Mrs. PETERSON. Very definitely. I would say that those guidelines would hold. I think it is well to note that the Secretary of Labor has the responsibility to be sure that educational institutions that would really serve the student well would be approved.

Senator RANDOLPH. Yes. Because you do speak about the requiring of evidence of an accreditation of an institution.

Mrs. PETERSON. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. So that its courses would not be fly-by-night, hit and miss.

Mrs. PETERSON. Exactly.

Senator RANDOLPH. They would be courses where there was a genuine background of teacher effectiveness and the course itself would be presented in such a way as to bring proficiency to the person who was in the process of training.

Mrs. PETERSON. That is correct. As you know we have some institutions better than others and have guidelines which do require evidence of accreditation which is a very important safeguard for these young students.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am sure, Senator Fannin and I, as we were students in educational institutions, remember not only those teachers who were proficient but also those teachers who inspired us. I think it is important that the teacher be not only an informative teacher but an inspired teacher. In this way we will build into the person in a course of study not just the aptitude but also the attitude. This to me is very, very important.

I don't want to belabor the point but if it is old fashioned to talk about the need for persons to really dig in and to learn I would like to be old fashioned this morning.

I think one of the problems, perhaps not only of the parents but teachers, is that the tendency to provide too many shortcuts by which students skim the surface and don't get the full benefit from what they are attempting to learn.

I hope that the tools of labor, whatever those tools may be, will be used by young people and older people who realize that as we utilize these we will remember always that we must apply ourselves. I just hope that sometimes in our curriculums of abstract subject matter we will remember that this is very important.

Mrs. PETERSON. As a former teacher, Senator, I may say that I endorse completely what you say.

62-865 66— -6

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you very much, Mrs. Peterson. And a final question. I recall from the testimony of Representative Edwards of Alabama during the debate in the House that the question was raised concerning this same section, section 10(M), providing the student must not have a break longer than 4 months in his process of education, if he or she were to receive benefits.

I believe that that was raised in the debate. At that time Representative O'Hara, who was the manager in the House of H.R. 10721, made it very clear, that the student shall continue to be eligible, and he used the language "during periods of reasonable duration during which in the judgment of the Secretary he is prevented by factors beyond his control from pursuing his education.

I believe that was the quote.

Now, Mrs. Peterson, in your opinion is this language strong enough or appropriate enough to cover the student who intends to continue education but must go beyond the formal period because of situations or circumstances which are uncontrollable?

Mrs. PETERSON. I feel that it is. Let me give you some reasons for it. Let me say also that I think it is an extremely important provision. I know with my own children and my experience in teaching how very frequently there have to be interruptions which would be possible under this law as changed along the recommendations that Representative O'Hara has made. So I endorse this very much.

I think we are in good hands when we say the judgment of the Secretary will be exercised in permitting school breaks. May I say right now especially, in the judgment of this Secretary. I know working with Secretary Wirtz one of the things that is uppermost in his mind is that we recognize today the importance of education and that we extend education as far as possible.

We should see that every person, every child has the possibility of going on in education, because we, in that way, can meet the future. I am positive that the guidelines that would be established under this bill would make it possible for the student to do this.

Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Mrs. Peterson.

Now we have addressed our questioning and answers to three points. I could continue but I believe matters have been clarified through your useful responses that supplement the formal statement. Mrs. PETERSON. I thank you for your comments on those points because I do not have those in my statement.

Senator RANDOLPH. Now Senator Fannin.

Senator FANNIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the Secretary a couple of questions. To expand on the matter of the educational training institutions, as I see it in this legislation, there is a variance from the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Public Law 89-97 which specifically defines an "educational institution"-you no doubt are familiar with that, but would you like me to read just exactly how it is defined, or are you familiar with that definition?

Mrs. PETERSON. I am not but I will be glad to look into this. Senator FANNIN. Just to clarify and I am sure you are familiar with this I did not mean it in that category-but the Social Security Act defines an educational institution as

(i) a school or college or university operated or directly supported by the United States, or by any State or local government or political subdivision thereof, or

(ii) a school or college or university which has been approved by a State or accredited by a State-recognized or nationally recognized accrediting agency or body, or (iii) a nonaccredited school or college or university whose credits are accepted, on transfer, by not less than three institutions which are so accredited, for credit on the same basis as if transferred from an institution so accredited.

I am wondering why the difference? In other words, should not these guidelines be stipulated in this legislation? Would it be in order for us to follow and be consistent with what is in the Social Security Act, to follow through rather than simply to say "an educational or training institution as defined by the Secretary," so as to stipulate them in the legislation?

Mrs. PETERSON. I think spelling it out with that detail might have some advantages certainly. I think that there really is no conflict between them. The accreditation does bring this in in its fullness. I think it complicates the law a great deal if you spell out the conditions with such precision. Under the Hathaway-O'Hara bill we have the authority to require evidence of accreditation. Now one never knows what kind of situation might develop. I don't know whether Miss Cox might want to add to that.

Miss Cox. We considered the provisions of other laws on this point. The provision in H.R. 10721 seemed to be a more flexible way of handling it and easier to administer.

Senator FANNIN. Miss Cox, I understand from what Mrs. Peterson said that the intent may be the same, but at the same time the interpretation might vary. Would not definitely stipulated guidelines strengthen the legislation?

Miss Cox. We could look at it further, Senator.

Senator FANNIN. You would have no objection to that change? Mrs. PETERSON. I think that I would like to look into this thoroughly and read the guidelines and see how they work out before I am sure. Why don't we submit further comments to you. Let me look at the social security provisions carefully and see how they operate. I think it is terribly important to be sure before we commit ourselves. We want flexibility. We want to be sure that these children get the best possible education.

We don't want the limitations. I would like an opportunity to examine the social security guidelines to see how they have operated. Senator FANNIN. In other words, if it would give clarity and intent to have these guidelines stipulated along with what you think would be in order, the purpose you have just stated?

Mrs. PETERSON. Yes. May we look into this? I would be glad to do this. I would like to reserve the right to examine them closely. Senator FANNIN. Would you want to supply a statement for the record?

Mrs. PETERSON. Yes, I will be happy to do this. (The information subsequently supplied follows:)

MEMORANDUM From the Department of Labor on ConCEPT OF EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING INSTITUTION UNDER H. R. 10721

The Department has again examined section 7 of H. R. 10721 in the light of the language of the Social Security Act provisions relating to student benefits. The purpose of prolonging benefits to permit children of FECA beneficiaries to continue in school is to allow and encourage them to acquire education or training necessary to a livelihood. The Department believes that this purpose can be best achieved by vesting in the Secretary of Labor the authority to approve schools.

A

technical definition of "educational institution," could serve unreasonably to nullify in some cases the intent of the provision. Whether the broad spectrum of education and training we visualize will in every instance meet rigid school standards in this era of changing technology and jobs, we cannot at this time determine with any certainty. We are, therefore, reluctant to endorse a definition of schools which may be unduly restrictive.

Tentative guidelines furnished at the hearings before the House Select Committee by the Solicitor in connection with eligibility of children to complete education under H. R. 10721 are still within the contemplation of the Department. They read in pertinent part, as follows:

"Educational institution' would be defined generally as public or private secondary school, vocational school, or approved training program, business school, junior college, teacher's college, college, normal school, professional school, university, or scientific or technical institution, or any other institution if it furnishes education at the secondary school level or above.

"The Secretary of Labor may require evidence of accreditation of an educational institution or approval of a training course or such other evidence as he may deem appropriate to establish that the institution or course meets a desirable standard of educational or training proficiency."

The provision relating to student's benefits in section 306 of Public Law 89-97, which amends section 202(d) of the Social Security Act, is written primarily in terms of accredited schools, colleges, or universities. On its face, it would not appear to comprehend, or give any latitude for, training courses or technical courses which, while they might be vital in many instances to secure a job opportunity, would not meet a formal established school accreditation system.

It is evident from the guidelines submitted to the House Select Labor Subcommittee that the Secretary's approval of a school, even though not bound up with a fixed definition, would be predicated on compliance with sound and realistic educational or training standards. We believe the safeguard of approval of only proper schools is implicit in H.R. 10721, as well as, the potentiality of its meeting sustained educational and training needs of eligible students on a broad basis.

Flexibility is especially important with respect to provisions of the FECA since, as the record well shows, it is so infrequently amended.

Senator PROUTY. Mrs. Peterson, I am sorry I was not here when you were presenting your statement.

You understand we have many things to do. I have not had a chance to go through all of your statement. However, I understand that you have recommended one change in the House approved bill? Mrs. PETERSON. Yes.

Senator PROUTY. I think I understand that recommendation, and I have no further questions.

Senator FANNIN. I do want to commend you for your statement and your clarification and explanation in several instances where questions did arise. Do you feel that this legislation will bring the Federal program into line with what is now in existence in private industry?

Mrs. Peterson. I don't think you can parallel them exactly. There are different plans in the private industry. The thing that this program would do is to bring up to date what was the intent of Congress when the FECA was passed. I would not want to compare it specifically because there are so many varied plans.

Senator FANNIN. I realize that. But you feel that this proposal is acceptable, would be more in line with what has been customarily accepted by industry and business?

Mrs. PETERSON. I would say that it would certainly bring it more in line with what the big employer would consider equity. I have not examined those enough to make an exact comparison.

Senator FANNIN. Certainly. But we could consider this as a matter of comparison with other programs?

Mrs. PETERSON. I think some far exceed this and some are far below. We have in our country a great deal of flexibility in the way different firms and different industries handle questions of disability benefits.

Senator FANNIN. I realize that but at the same time we do have programs in industry that are considered as fairly standard.

Mrs. PETERSON. I would say yes to that, this would be putting it in line with a reasonable program.

Senator FANNIN. Very good. And not in excess.

Mrs. PETERSON. No, this if fair.

Senator FANNIN. Thank you.

Senator PROUTY (presiding pro tempore). The next witness is Mr. John H. McCart, operations director, Government Employees' Council.

Thank you, Mrs. Peterson.

Mrs. PETERSON. It is good to see you.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Mr. MCCART. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is John A. McCart. I am the operations director of the Government Employes' Council, AFL-CIO. There are 30 unions associated with the council representing postal, classified, and wage board employees in the various Government agencies.

Mr. Chairman, we have supplied the subcommittee with copies of our prepared statement. With your approval I would like to have that statement appear in full in the record and to proceed extemporaneously to summarize it.

Senator PROUTY. Without objection your statement will be included in the record. Please proceed.

(The prepared statement of Mr. McCart follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MCCART, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR,
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES' COUNCIL, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Government Employes' Council and its 30 affiliated unions representing employees in the classified, postal, and wage board services of the Federal Government desires to extend its appreciation to you and your colleagues for arranging this hearing on desirable changes in the Government's program for its employees who experience on-the-job injuries and the prevention of additional accidents, which result in compensation claims.

With the press of legislative business experienced by members of the subcommittee, it is particularly encouraging that you have scheduled this prompt hearing on a subject of vital concern to Federal employes and their families.

We are especially grateful to Senator Pat McNamara for introducing S. 2157 and to Senator Daniel Brewster for sponsoring S. 3253. Senators Harrison Williams and Warren Magnuson have offered S. 3154 relating to chiropractic services.

The last revision of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act occurred in 1960. Six years have elapsed. It is most appropriate that Congress undertake a comprehensive review of the statute to determine its application to the current needs of employees covered by the compensation statute and the Federal Government as the employer.

We propose to comment first on H. R. 10721.

Under section 5 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, an individual's compensation rights terminate as soon as he receives the amount the law provides for loss of an arm, leg, hand, where that loss is the sole disability. Despite the fact that his injury may affect his earning ability, he receives no further payments.