Of course, the thing is incompatible certainly to our concept of morality in human relations.

With respect to this handicap work I want to point out to you, Senator, that the man who was injured on the job has one concern. That is, how soon can I get back to my work. He does not want charity. He is impatient. He is concerned. He is worried. With the awful state of our compensation system which today in Illinois, for example-which is not the worst State has a compensation system which only replaces 13 percent of the wage loss of the injured worker, it means a reduced standard of living for his family.

This worker has children to educate. He does not want them educated at public expense. He wants to educate them through his efforts, and wants to get back on the job.

Where the injury results in permanent physical impairment that problem becomes much more multiplied. He may have been a worker of top skill. We will say he is a tool and die maker. Some injury has happened to his hand and he can no longer perform the delicate operations required by his trade. So unfortunately we have engaged in the practice of taking such people, and the employer magnanimously makes room for the man running an elevator or sweeping the floors, and thus throws out the intelligence that enabled him to become a tool and die maker. He throws on the scrap heap the remnants of the skill he had acquired. He could be trained to hold another job.

The way our present rehabilitation system operates, it goes something like this. The worker is injured and has the attention of the physician or the surgeon, as the case may be. The point arrives at which the physician or the surgeon says, "I have done all I can. It is up to nature." Then he walks off the case. There then ensues a tremendous lag in the rehabilitation service. These worries and these fears that the worker has with him constantly too often, we are afraid, put that man in such a position within a short space of 3 months that he cannot be rehabilitated successfully.

So we join with Dr. Alexander P. Aiken, whose name was mentioned in the testimony of the American Federation of Labor. Dr. Aiken is from Boston. He is chairman of the Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons. Please do not confuse that organization with the American Medical Association. It is not the same, and the attitudes are not the same.

Dr. Aiken holds to the theory, and we agree with him, that rehabilitation should start with first aid, and the services should be available throughout the entire period of convalescence. They should be directed to restoring that worker to a job at his highest obtainable skill if he is a permanently physically disabled person.

Furthermore, the physician and surgeon must remain with the patient until he is so restored to the job. We have got to get away from these lags, or these periods of seeming indifference. The doctor is the only one who can consider the whole problem of the patient-the whole medical problem. He is one problem. There are the psychic factors, and all of the other things, such as his working habits and methods of doing things. Only the physician and surgeon could detect that, and he should be on hand to aid in whatever therapy is re quired and whatever vocational training is required.

As to the importance to national defense of the manpower we are wasting in this fashion, I need not belabor that. I think it is apparent to the subcommittee. I merely want to call your attention to it.

One of the difficulties is that our rehabilitation system in this country seems to have grown up in a type of isolation. It has become isolated. Here in Washington we have these activities scattered among we are not sure how many agencies. We suspect there are 32 of them that all have a piece of this. When we get out into the States, if you please, we very often find these rehabilitation people up in their own ivory tower. They do not talk to anybody else. They do not consult with the department of workmen's compensation. They make no efforts to ascertain what the record is of the workmen's compensation, and its history and experience. There they sit in solitary grandeur, and the disabled worker and the handicapped person is forced to go out and search for them.

We do not think that a public agency should act in that fashion. It is not the overlord of the people in this country. It is the servant of the people and it should be on hand to serve.

So we want these facilities integrated with the other activities like the Public Health Service. Of course, I know that States rights are going to raise their many heads in discussions on this question. But you know, I do not think that States per se have any rights. I think the people of the States have the rights, and I think it is a function of the State government to guarantee those rights and to carry them out and take the measures that are needful to see that they are carried out, So when a State neglects the rights of its own people, there is only one place where labor can go for relief in an orderly society. That is to the Congress. And that is where we are, gentlemen, in the face of the present record. We are before Congress on this question. We would rather see it done by the voluntary agencies, by the wise guidance and participation of the States; but the voluntary agencies are not well enough equipped to do it.

We wish you could go out with us some time and see these things. For instance, yesterday I was up in New York and I went through a rehabilitation center up there operated by a voluntary private agency. I wish you could see just how little money it would take to really do the job. I wish you could see the eagerness and the interest and the faces of the people who are there being rehabilitated. It would be highly rewarding, and I think it would convince any reasonable man of the highly important need for proper rehabilitation services and Vocational retraining.

We have a criticism of S. 2759, or a number of criticisms, rather. It is now before this committee. I will not dwell on those in any great detail except to point out that we are afraid under the terms of the law we are going to compound the State failure of the people. That is what we are afraid of. We think that the Federal Government cannot pass this responsibility more extensively than the States, because they have not exercised in the past the responsibility that had been entrusted to them. It was left to them and they did not do it. Therefore the Federal Government must exercise its proper role of leadership in behalf of the people who happen to be more than citizens of States they are citizens also of the United States.

I do not believe you can leave these things to State discretion because the States in many cases have not exhibited any great amount of dis

46293-54-pt. 2-19

cretion. As I say, they have gotten into some isolated operations in many cases, and in too many cases, to the neglect of the people for whom the services were intended.

So we are pleading with this committee to bring in legislation in accord with our point of view. We are supporting in principle S. 2570, which would bring together in the Department of Labor all of these Federal rehabilitation facilities.

That bill provides for housekeeping purposes. We think it ought to go further than that. We think it ought to be an integral part of the Department of Labor, which has some experience in wage-andhour law administration; in the employment services; and in all of the other services which have such an important bearing on this. We have a great deal of work to do and we think that the Department of Labor can do it because of its acquired experience in those fields. We think that is the appropriate place for it. We would not want to see a separate agency set up. We want it in an agency which we feel has the interests of the workers at heart. That was the purpose of establishing the Department of Labor, and inasmuch as most of these people are workers, or members of workers' families, we would have much more confidence in the Department of Labor as the administrative group to supervise these activities.

pur

Similarly we would like to see the State departments of labor exercising the same function. Of course, that is not within the view of this committee. There I will concede to the State the right to set up its own system, and we will have to fight those questions out at the State level.

So I will be glad, Senator, to answer any questions you may have. Senator GOLDWATER. I have no questions. Your testimony follows pretty much the American Federation of Labor's testimony. Mr. READ. Yes, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. And looking over pretty quickly the statement that you submitted, the figures are substantially the same as they have submitted.

Mr. READ. Yes.

Senator GOLDWATER. So I have no questions at the present time. I think you have made a very clear statement of your position.

Mr. READ. Well, thank you very much, Senator, I appreciate the opportunity.

Senator GOLDWATER. I am sorry that there are no other Senators here who might care to question you. I have no questions at the present time. We will thank you for coming before us today and giving us your valuable time.

Mr. READ. Thank you.

Senator GOLDWATER. The next witness will be Mr. R. C. Thompson, State Director of the Maryland Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, States Vocational Rehabilitation Council. Mr. Thompson.

STATEMENT OF R. C. THOMPSON, STATE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, STATES VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION COUNCIL

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GOLDWATER. It is a privilege to have you with us. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Senator GOLDWATER. You can either read your statement or proceed as you wish, and we will make it a portion of the record.

Mr. THOMPSON. The time is late, and may I just speak extemporaneously for 5 minutes, and we will file the statement?

Senator GOLDWATER. Yes. It will be made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF R. C. THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF THE MARYLAND DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, REPRESENTING THE STATES VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, my name is R. C. Thompson. I am Director of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Maryland State Department of Education. Today, I am representing the States Vocational Rehabilitation Council, the organization of State directors of vocational rehabilitation, which serves as an advisory body to the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Since we administer the State vocational rehabilitation program which the proposed legislation seeks to expand, we are, naturally, very much concerned with action that may be taken by this committee and by Congress.

Let me say in the beginning that we approve the objectives of the President as outlined in his state of the Union message and in subsequent messages to the Congress. We also believe that S. 2758 and S. 2759 can provide the framework for the expanded program which everyone seems to agree is badly needed. In this statement, I shall call attention to matters which the State directors of rehabilitation feel are most essential in the development of a sound rehabilitation program and shall make some suggestions with respect to specific provisions in S. 2759.

For many years State directors of vocational rehabilitation have been pointing out weaknesses in the present program and recommending Federal and State legislation and greater appropriations in order that these weaknesses may be corrected and more of the handicapped of the Nation rehabilitated into gainful employment. As we see it, in order to accomplish this objective we are going to have to have more facilities, more personnel, and more money, not only to provide the first two, but to provide rehabilitation services themselves for the handicapped.

We approve S. 2758, amendments to the Hospital Survey and Construction Act which makes Federal money available to assist the States in establishing rehabilitation facilities. We sincerely hope that after this bill is passed, Congress will make available the full $10 million per year as authorized in the bill for this important part of the rehabilitation program. We hope that funds to be appropriated will be specifically earmarked for rehabilitation facilities. We also hope that the provision in the House bill which allows one State to assign its allotment to another State for the purpose of establishing a regional facility will be included in the Senate bill.

Although it is not clear in the bill, we understand that special project funds to be appropriated, after 1956, will be available to encourage research and the training of additional rehabilitation personnel. We certainly hope that this is true, for both the areas of research and the training of personnel have been badly neglected.

Although we are not opposing the establishment of a fund for the improvement and extension of the rehabilitation program, we would like to understand more clearly just how the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation would use this fund. Some of us have received the impression that projects to be approvable under this section would have to be projects which would get the State agencies into entirely new areas of rehabilitation. Since the greatest need in the States is to expand their rehabilitation programs as they now exist, we think it would be very unfortunate if improvement and extension funds could not be used to expand the general programs.

Since we actually administer the rehabilitation programs, we are naturally very much interested in the administrative setup under which rehabilitation operates. We believe that the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation should be in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. So far as I know, every State director of rehabilitation in the country feels this way about it. If the committee can do somehing to strengthen the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation

within the Department, we think this would be desirable. For instance, in a bill that passed the Senate in 1950, the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation was given legal bureau status. We think this would be a good idea.

We notice that S. 2759 recommends some changes in the administration in the States. As you know, State boards for vocational education are now the administering agencies, except for programs for the blind. We do not object to the section of S. 2759 which allows a State to set up a State rehabilitation agency in lieu of the State board for vocational education. Some testimony before the committee has indicated that it should be mandatory upon the States to estab lish such independent agencies. We do not think this is desirable. The pro -gram is operating very effectively in most of the States under the present setup We think that the States should be left to determine whether the independent agency is needed for more efficient administration of the program. We agree with the testimony of the National Rehabilitation Association that the language of this section should be revised to make it clear that it is not the purpose of Congress to break up the administration of vocational rehabilitation programs on the State level. We think this can be done without in any way interfering with the intent of the authors of S. 2759.

We are concerned, of course, with the method of financing which is developed for the program. Rehabilitation programs in the States grew very rapidly for a few years after the passage of the Barden-La Follette Amendments in 1943 This growth was caused, to a great extent, by the fact that the States knew that moneys they appropriated would be matched on a very liberal basis by the Federal Government. As you know, the Rehabilitation Act was intended to be an open-end act, and was administered that way for several years. Financia' difficulties have been encountered since the Federal Government has taken the position that the act is not an open end, although attorneys in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare have always insisted that it is. There is no doubt that the program is being retarded at the present time because of the uncertainty over the responsibilities of the Federal Government for rehabilita tion. Accordingly, we hope this committee will revise the financing methods in the bill so as to clear up any doubt with respect to this responsibility.

We are very much afraid of how the variable grant method of financing the basic rehabilitation program would work out in actual practice. We understand that after the period of transition, over 20 States would have Federal allotments less than their present grants, provided the same amount of money is appro priated by Congress as is now being appropriated. We also understand that » least 20 States would receive less than 50 percent Federal funds for their programs. To allow a situation such as this to come into existence would, we feel be extremely unfortunate at a time when everyone concerned is trying to expand rehabilitation for the handicapped, not retard it. We sincerely hope that the committee will work out a plan of financing which will keep any State from getting a reduction in the amount of Federal funds that it now receives,

Two methods of doing this have already been suggested by witnesses before this committee. One is embodied in S. 3039 by Senator Potter, of Michigan which would maintain programs at their 1953 levels, but would provide that a' additional funds appropriated for the rehabilitation services program would be matched 50-50 by the Federal Government. Another plan would incorporate the method of financing public assistance for the aid to the needy blind and ad to the totally and permanently disabled for the method of financing found in S. 2759. This would mean that rehabilitation would he financed under an ojetend type of law. It is undoubtedly true that this method of financing will offer the greatest encouragement to the States to expand their programs. We urge the committee to give careful consideration to both these methods of financing. for they can both be fitted into the framework of S. 2759.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to urge this committee to report immediately a bill to repeal the restrictive language which was inserted in the 1954 Laber HEW appropriation bill. This appropriation language actually has the effect of entirely abrogating the method of financing vocational rehabilitation fourd in Public Law 113 of the 78th Congress. We do not understand how this language got into the bill. No mention of it is made in the conference committee report or in the Congressional Record. Since the passage of S. 2759 will probably take some time, we urge the committee to report a bill to repeal this language without any delay. The uncertainty in the States which has been brought about by this appropriation language is undermining the program and making it impossible for the States to plan their 1955 activities.