From this brief background, I think you can understand the tremendous importance of the rehabilitation program, both to disabled individuals and to the Nation as a whole.

The charts have also illustrated the static condition of the program today in terms of numbers of persons rehabilitated annually. Our total effort is exceedingly inadequate. A vast backlog of physically handicapped persons exists, and yet every day newly disabled individuals are becoming dependent upon their families and the public. As a nation, Mr. Chairman, we have shown great shortsightedness is not devoting more attention to the potentialities of the rehabilitation process. As the President stated in his special health message of January 18: "There are no statistics to portray the full depth and meaning in human terms of the rehabilitation program, but clearly it is a program that builds a better America.'

It was for these reasons that the President, in his health message, recommended a progressive expansion of our rehabilitation program over a 5-year period. He suggested that we establish goals to increase the number of rehabilitants far above the present 60,000 per year. As a 1955 goal he recommended 70,000 rehabilitants; for 1956, 100,000; and progressively upward until we reach by 1959 the goal of 200,000 rehabilitated persons in the course of the year. This schedule progression takes into consideration the time required to expand facilities and to increase the supply of trained personnel. It also gives the States an opportunity to plan for their part of the additional financial support needed.

If the program were to be merely continued at its present level during the next 5 years, we could anticipate rehabilitating in that period about 300,000 persons. The expanded program would rehabilitate an additional 360,000 persons at an estimated additional cost of $209 million. As you will see, however, this additional cost to the States and the Federal Government would be offset several times by the resulting savings in public-assistance costs and the revenues from income taxes of the persons restored to jobs.

The bill before you is designed to provide the legislative framework for the dynamic expansion of the program which the administration has recommended. Before we proceed with the actual legislative changes in the bill, however, I would like to ask Mr. Rockefeller to illustrate, with the charts, the goals and the costs of the proposed expansion.

Chart I-Past and proposed programs

This chart shows the administration's proposed program against the backdrop of need and in relation to accomplishments in the past.

At present about 60,000 disabled persons are being rehabilitated annually. The administration's goal calls for 200,000 disabled persons to be rehabilitated annually by 1959.

Chart J-Expanded rehabilitation program

Chart J shows that projected accomplishments, both of the present program and the expanded program, for the fiscal years 1955-59.

In fiscal 1955, although a substantial tooling up to establish the necessary additional facilities and personnel would be required, the rehabilitation of 10,000 more persons than are now being rehabilitated annually would be achieved.

In fiscal 1956, the second year, 40,000 more disabled persons would be rehabilitated. Together with the 60,000 from the basic program, this would, for the first time, achieve the goal of 100,000 rehabilitations in a single year.

In the fifth year, fiscal 1959, the expanded program would achieve the rehabilitation of 200,000 disabled persons.

Over the next 5 years, then, it is estimated that an additional 360,000 disabled persons could be rehabilitated. Together with the 300,000 from the basic program, this would total 660,000 disabled persons established in productive work during that period.

Chart K-Expanded rehabilitation program, estimated cost, 1955–59

Chart K shows the projected estimate of the cost of continuing the existing program and of providing for the proposed expansion.

For the first year of the expanded program (fiscal 1955) total Federal grants to States and State matching funds are estimated at $42 million.

During the next 4 years, total program costs would continue to increase, reaching $120 million in 1959.

Chart L-Cost of 5-year proposed expansion

Chart L illustrates the computation of the estimated cost of the expanded program alone.

The bar at the left shows the estimated 360,000 more disabled persons to be rehabilitated. If special efforts are made to reach persons receiving public assistance, it is estimated that about 107,000, or 30 percent, of these persons to be rehabilitated would be taken from the public-assistance rolls.

On the basis of past experience, it is estimated that the total cost of the expanded program will average about $580 per rehabilitant. Multiplying this by the estimated 360,000 disabled persons, the total program cost, both Federal and State, for the proposed expansion would be about $209 million.

Chart M-Expanded rehabilitation program; costs and savings expected

It is self-evident that rehabilitation pays social dividends in restoring independence and confidence to a disabled person. But the dollars-and-cents returns to the Federal and State governments are striking.

The first bar on the left side shows the estimated total Federal-State cost$209 million-for the expanded part of the program of rehabilitating 360,000 more disabled persons during the 5-year period.

The right side of the chart shows two areas of possible savings. It is estimated that the 360,000 disabled persons who would be rehabilitated under the expanded program could be expected to pay Federal income taxes totaling $280 million during a 5-year work period after their rehabilitation-thereby more than repaying the program cost.

It is estimated that 107,000 of the disabled persons rehabilitated through the proposed expansion could be removed from public-assistance rolls. If they remained on public assistance, they would require public aid for an average of 9 years at a total cost (Federal-State-local) of $722 million. About 58 percent of this cost would be borne by the States and local communities and 42 percent by the Federal Government.

Thus, increased income-tax revenues and the reduction in public-assistance payments would substantially exceed the cost of the proposed program.