2 of the fact that the Administration will not recommend funds for rehabilitation facility construction. this program. Since the Administration, ordin arily, has favored the approach of mortgage guarantees and interest subsidies for construction, it comes as a surprise that it would oppose For a very modest sum of money in interest subsidies, the construction of rehabilitation facilities can be greatly encouraged. We hope the Committee will include these sections in the bill it reports. We are concurring with other organizations in a few simple amendments to these sections. National Information and Resource Center The Administration opposes a National Information and Resource Center for the Handicapped. It states that it has adequate authority to undertake these activities. It is true that the Administration probably has all the legislative authority it needs for developing an information and resource center as would be authorized in Section 410. The fact is, however, that the Administration has not taken any substantial steps in this direction, and the need for such an information and resource center is unquestioned. We hope the Committee will include Section 410 in the bill it reports. National Commission on Transportation and Housing The Administration opposes the establishment of a National Commission on Transportation and Housing of the Handicapped. Again, it states that it already has the authority it needs to undertake this activity. The fact is that there is minimal activity in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare relating to housing and transportation of handicapped individuals. In our judgment, there is not likely to be any significant movement in these areas without the specific legislation called for in this bill, 3 or some other direct legislative approach. Environmental barriers are one of the principal concerns of handicapped individuals. We hope this section will be retained in the bill. Renal Disease The Administration opposes Section 415, which authorizes project grants for the provision of services to individuals suffering from endstage renal disease. The Administration argues that this is a medical problem and that it has presented a preferable alternative in its national health insurance proposal. The National Rehabilitation Association takes the position that the country cannot afford to wait until the passage of a national health insurance bill before it does something to meet the overwhelming needs of people suffering from end-stage renal disease. Whether or not the Administration's program, if passed, would be adequate, we cannot pass judgment. Witnesses for the legislation have clearly expressed the need for the program and have documented the reasons why they would like to have this administered through the vocational rehabilitation agencies. The arguments are convincing to us. Incidentally, we prefer the approach of the Williams-Tower bill to the approach in the House bill for accomplishing the purpose intended. Innovation and Expansion HR 8395 combines the current innovation program and the current expansion grant programs into one program called Initiation and Expansion. The program becomes a formula grant program, with half of the appropriation to be controlled by the states, half by the Secretary of HEW. The Administration wants the entire appropriation controlled by the Secretary, which would change it from a formula grant program to a special project 4 program. The National Rehabilitation Association opposes this change. The Administration has not recommended any money for innovation projects for two years. Increases in expansion grant funds have been used almost exclusively for the rehabilitation of public assistance recipients. While the states are glad to cooperate in every effort to increase the number of public assistance recipients rehabilitated, they feel the need for developing some programs based on their own priorities. We oppose the approach recommended by the Administration and urge the acceptance of the language now found in HR 8395. Center for Deaf The Administration opposes a special section of the legislation authorizing the establishment of comprehensive rehabilitation centers for deaf youth and adults. Instead, it proposes a simple amendment to the special projects provision of the bill to accomplish this purpose. The fact is that the Administration does not need any additional legislation of any kind in order to establish these centers. It has not, however, taken any steps in this direction, except as related to the deaf-blind. To our knowledge, it has never presented a proposal to Congress requesting money for the purpose specified in Section 412. We prefer, therefore that the special section be retained in the bill. Center for Spinal Cord Injured It states that it already has The Administration opposes the section of the bill authorizing national centers for spinal cord injuries. authority to establish such centers. This is true, and the Administration has already made some grants to encourage the development of such centers. It states that it will submit a line item budget on this matter next year. - 5 Again, we feel it would be better to retain the special section, since ow experience is that programs with identifiable sections of the bill have a better chance of being fituded. Severely Disabled The The Administration does not oppose Title III outright, but has "grave concerns" about it. These concerns appear to us to have no substance. Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, in administering this program, naturally would utilize services available from other programs, just as they utilize services available from other sources for vocational rehabilitation clients under the vocational rehabilitation program. Administration warned against having two separate sets of personnel to administer to the two aspects of the rehabilitation program. So far as I know, no one ever had anything of this kind in mind. As explained in NRA testimony, this will be one unified rehabilitation program, with the same personnel serving all handicapped individuals, without respect to their rehabilitation goals. The Administration recommends that the federal matching percentage of this program be 80%, the same as the matching percentage for the vocational rehabilitation title. We agree on this. We did not recommend the 90% on the House side, feeling that the two programs should be financed on the same matching ratio. Incidentally, we think Congress might very well consider whether to make the entire program, Titles I and III, 90% in light of some of the suggestions being made in other programs. Senator CRANSTON. Our next witness is Mr. James Stearns, United Cerebral Palsy. STATEMENT OF JAMES STEARNS, SENIOR AT DARTMOUTH COLLEGE Mr. STEARNS. Let me say at the beginning that I am not here officially as a member of the United Cerebral Palsy; rather, I am here as a consumer who does happen to have cerebral palsy. I am a senior at Dartmouth. I am presently engaged in a year's research on problems of the physically handicapped. It is not sponsored by any Federal, State, or local government, but rather is a project that I conceived and initiated because of my interest in the subject and my own experience. My interest in this area obviously comes in part because I am myself a victim of cerebral palsy. Now, immediately you have an image of what I should be a quaking, drooling, pathetic individual who is probably retarded and should receive all of your pity and tears. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I am not any of these, and for that I am grateful. First of all, I think I must make clear that, although I am a victim of cerebral palsy, it is a mild form. I have a listed IQ of 137. I am a senior at Dartmouth this year and have already received a special fellowship to study at the University of Manchester, in England, next year. I was near the top of my class at prep school, a State finalist debater, sports editor of the Daily Dartmouth, president of my fraternity, and I could list several other achievements of my life. I list these things not to blow my own horn or inflate my own ego; I tell you these things because I am a victim of cerebral palsy and I tell you these things to merely point out that all individuals with cerebral palsy are not in need of special government services or any other services. Granted, I have had some personal, physical obstacles to overcome during my lifetime and I do have certain physical limitations which I must live with. However, I do not consider myself to be handicapped either in the traditional sense or the literal sense. I am not handicapped because of the understanding and the attitude that has prevailed in my own home throughout my lifetime. My parents instilled in me a value system and an outlook on life in which handicap was never a factor that I had to contend with. I am one of the more fortunate people in this world, because, Mr. Chairman, there are individuals in this country who have cerebral palsy who will never achieve anything that I have achieved. In fact, many may never be able to walk by themselves, feed themselves, or even talk and communicate as I am doing here today. This is why I am so grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today to make clear to you that all people who fall under a particular category which is listed as disabled do not need government assistance. There are blind individuals who achieve monumental heights in spite of the fact that they can't see. There are stunning examples as I am sure you are aware. |