The amount requested for the expansion grant also includes the grants for the statewide planning efforts, which was another of the authorizations in the new legislation. The statewide planning estimates are for $3,250,000, an increase of $1,250,000 over this year, because not all the States will get underway this year.

I think this is one of the most important of our new responsibilities, because you have often said, Mr. Chairman, that the fractionating of planning with the concentration first on the mentally retarded, and then on the mentally ill, fragments people's attention; and what we need is an overall look at the whole field of the handicapped. We hope that this is what will result from these statewide planning efforts.

We have some evidence already in the plans that are being developed in the States that we will have a very impressive effort as a result of this new legislation.

The rest of the estimate for projects to expand the program requests $6,310,000 compared with $3 million made available in 1966. This is what will be available for the projects to increase the number of rehabilitations, particularly in places where there has been some evidence that States cannot pick up fast enough to make the progress which we think they should.

CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION OF WORKSHOPS

A very important part of the changes in the vocational rehabilitation program made by the 1965 amendments relate to increasing the quantity and quality of the services available through rehabilitation facilities and workshops, especially workshops.

In the construction and improvement of workshops, the 1967 budget request goes into operation. The 1966 program is largely one of building up and planning. In the construction we go from planning into actual construction. In 1967, $4.5 million is requested.

For improvement of workshops, $6 million is asked. We need a concentrated effort to improve the ability of workshops to serve the needs of disabled and really to come to grips with what is the best way to make workshops responsive to the needs. There are about 800 functioning workshops in the country, many of them small and inadequately equipped. They all have served a purpose in the past, but altogether too small a proportion of the rehabilitants go through them. We hope as a result of the authority for the training grants we will be able to step up this considerably in 1967.

RESEARCH AND TRAINING

Our research and training program is under the same basic authority we have had since 1954. We are requesting a total of $60,325,000, an increase of $7,180,000 over last year. This appropriation provides funds for research and demonstration projects, training projects, and special research and training centers, and domestic support of the international research program.

The increase for the research and demonstrations is modest, and more or less holds the program about the level that we have had for the last couple of years. In the training program we will be stressing particularly the areas that are in shortest supply in relation to the new parts of our responsibilities, rehabilitation counselors, physicians, and work

shop personnel. This is what most of the increase in the training programs will be. It will increase the number of institutions cooperating with us, and will increase fairly substantially the number of trainees.

RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTERS

In connection with the research and training centers, the 1967 program provides for the continuation of 17 centers. This program is one of the most enthusiastically supported. Although it has been in operation for only 5 years, we feel we are on the right track in giving comprehensive program grants, not only in the field of medical rehabilitation, but in the vocationally oriented programs and centers for the mentally retarded. We will probably approve tomorrow at the National Advisory Council meeting one research and training center for the deaf. This is something we have long dreamed of, and we are very enthusiastic about the prospects.

The special center program received a good deal of commendation from the President's Commission on Heart Disease, Cancer, and Stroke last year. Already we have done a good deal in stepping up our work as a result of the supplemental we received last year on the recommendation of your committee.

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

The Citizens Advisory Committee on Vocational Rehabilitation, which the committee provided for in our appropriation last year, has been a little slow in getting underway. The first meeting of the committee, we hope, we will hold in March, and we think there is a tremendous opportunity to really make a great contribution. We do not think, however, that we will be able to finish the work this year because we had such a late start. Properly to carry on its mission, we should probably have an extension into the fiscal year 1967 with the authority to continue to use whatever money is necessary, not to exceed $100,000. I think that will be quite adequate out of the "Research and training" appropriation which is what happened last year.

SPECIAL FOREIGN CURRENCY PROGRAM

In the "Special foreign currency program," $4 million is requested. This is an increase of $2 million over fiscal year 1966 but it is not as much of an increase as it appears because over the past several years there has been an accumulation of balances, which will be used up in fiscal year 1966. The $4 million request will finance the program at about the same level it was in 1966, the program will continue to operate in the same countries where we are now, and maybe in one or two new ones, depending on the governmentwide policy.

One of the most interesting and encouraging aspects of this program is the interchange of experts from overseas and the sending of our experts to our projects abroad. We will probably have between 40 and 50 of these exchanges each way in the next year. One of these is very interesting. Dr. Weiss, from Poland, has revolutionized, we think, the surgery on amputations. He found that by fitting artificial limbs immediately upon operation, instead of waiting for the stump

60-627-66-pt. 2- -38

to heal, a great deal of psychological trauma can be saved to the patient who wakes up with a leg instead of waking up with a stump.

He is here in this country going around to the centers we have cooperating with him. He has a very exciting and very thrilling development. This is one of the very positive things that could well revolutionize our whole prosthetic program in the next couple of years if the results continue to be as promising as the early ones have.

STUDY OF CORRECTIONAL MANPOWER

Last year also we had a new responsibility given to us, the authority to make a study of correctional manpower. This estimate calls for the second year request of $800,000 for the 3-year study. The Advisory Council on Correctional Rehabilitation Manpower and Training is about to be appointed, and, when that is done, we will be off the ground and can go along in pursuing that effort.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

"Salaries and expenses" is always one of our more troublesome items. We have requested $5,381,000 for 1967, which includes $299,000 to be transferred from OSAI trust funds. That is an increase of $14 million and 63 additional positions.

The increase is almost entirely related to the additional responsibilities for the new legislation, both in the regional offices and in our central office; it includes the positions necessary to set up the two programs which are authorized in the amendments, but for which we have not been able to do much more than initiate planning: The intramural research program and the national data center.

We can give you a breakdown on those positions, if you wish. That is a brief summary of our activities and very much a highlight statement because we have lots of things in there.

GRANTS FOR REHABILITATION SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you, Miss Switzer.

The appropriation for 1966 is $132,310,000 and there is a proposal for a supplemental request of $39 million.

Miss SWITZER. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. The request for 1967 is $259,060,000, an increase of $87,750,000?

Miss SWITZER. Yes.

AMENDMENTS OF 1965

Mr. FOGARTY. That is mainly because of the new act?

Miss SWITZER. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. What was the vote on that in the House and Senate? Was there a record vote?

Miss SWITZER. I don't think there was a record vote on the floor. I think it was as nearly unanimous as anything could be.

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought it was unanimous.

Would you just take a little time and explain the major changes made in the law by last year's amendments?

CHANGE IN MATCHING FORMULA

Miss SWITZER. The first major one was in the financing. The old law had quite a complicated formula which took the per capita income and population, squared the per capita income, had a whole variety of provisions which limited the amount of increase that could go to any one State and out of the limitation took care of the States that didn't come up to that.

The general effect of the matching under the old law, which was the Hill-Burton formula for matching which ranged from 50 percent for the high income States to 70 percent for the low income States, the main effect of the new law by having a flat 75 percent matching, was to give a greater relative share of the Federal funds to the highpopulation States, particularly those with concentrations in the urban areas where really the big problems are. The importance of this is quite obvious from the way in which the formula operates.

In section 3, the main change was increasing the matching from 75 to 90 percent for the first 3 years of a 4-year project; the other 2 years are at 75 percent. Do you want me to go on down the list?

Mr. FOGARTY. Yes.

EXPANSION GRANTS

Miss SWITZER. The new legislation provided for a series of grants for services called expansion grants under section 4, which are very flexible project type grants which can go either to public agencies, State agencies, or voluntary groups in the community to provide services either to intensify attention on certain groups, to break new ground, or to generally speed up rehabilitations. This is expressly designed to increase services where there is a slowdown or where there is a readiness to take advantage of some new discovery like in heart disease or cancer.

STATEWIDE PLANNING

This section also authorized the statewide planning which is a 2-year program, and we hope it will be finished by that time.

The most comprehensive new activity which the legislation authorize was the workshop program. This is in several different parts. The first part has to do with facilities planning within the State. It is contemplated that each State would have a facilities staff whose responsibility would be to plan facilities development and do it in an orderly way. In a sense, this program attempts to do what the HillBurton program attempts to do-develop an inventory of what you have, what you need, and assess some priorities, so that the resources can be deployed on a planned basis.

CONSTRUCTION OF PACILITIES

The second is the construction of facilities. The construction program is financed according to the Hill-Burton matching formula. The third is a project program which provides for grants to workshops for the purpose of improving their professional and managerial services in whatever way is best to bring the workshop up to the standards needed to serve the community. Standards will be set for workshops by a Performance Council, which was established under the new legislation and which is in the process of being organized.

TRAINING SUPPORT GRANTS

The final and most important part of the program for workshops is the training support grants. This authorizes the payment of training stipends to handicapped people in workshops that have a training program approved by the Council, and the grants are in lieu of maintenance grants. They make allowances for dependents. The program also contemplates that the workshops themselves will receive grants to provide adequate training. This in a way follows the general pattern of the normal training program: grants to the institution to set up the training and grants to individuals to permit them to take the training.

This is very important in the long pull, to properly integrate work experience, work evaluation, and actual training on the job for people who need this type of long-term exposure in a work atmosphere. Nobody could be in this program for longer than 2 years. This could have a very great effect on their vocational adjustment.

COMMITTEE ON ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS

The bill also provides for establishment of a Committee on Architectural Barriers, to work intensively for 3 years to capitalize on what is already done, and to try to speed up the day when handicapped people will not be excluded from public buildings, because of the thoughtlessness of architects in designing them.

I think those are the main parts.

ALLOTMENT BASE

Mr. FOGARTY. It appears then that you have dropped the allotment base provision that we have carried in the appropriation language for the last several years?

Mr. SWITZER. Yes. The substitution for that actually is the specific authorizations in the legislation that was passed. The authorization in 1966 is $300 million; in 1967, $350 million, and $400 million in 1968. This is set. These estimates for 1967 are based on dividing the $350 million according to the formula in the law. This is what the States are entitled to. It has the same effect as the allotment base.

Mr. FOGARTY. Under the budget will there be States that can match more than the funds you would be able to provide?

Miss SWITZER. There will be a few States.

Mr. FOGARTY. You still have that problem?
Miss SWITZER. Yes.

DEPARTMENT AND BUDGET BUREAU ACTION ON BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. FOGARTY. You did not get along very well with the Bureau of the Budget, did you? The Department nicked you a little here and there, too? You asked for $375 million and they cut you almost $16 million. You are losing your touch. I thought you generally got what you asked for.

Miss SWITZER. We do pretty well. This was a difficult year with the budget.

Mr. FOGARTY. Even for you?