programs designed specifically to assist the handicapped should be less than in parallel programs designed to assist those who are disadvantaged in other ways. In views, therefore, of the amendments which are in the process of being made to the MDTA, we recommend that the Federal participation in the programs for providing training services in workshops in the proposed section 14(a) (I) be changed from 75 to 90 percent.

3. We believe that the committee should make permanent the authority of the Secretary to make allotments under section 2 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act on the basis of larger amounts than are appropriated.

We

4. We note that in several sections of the bill, as in the text of the original (1954) act, the term "physically handicapped individual" is used in relation to provisions which we understand will apply equally well to the mentally retarded and mentally restored as to those with orthopedic or sensory defects or chronic diseases. recognize that by precedent this term is, and, we assume, will continue to be, broadly interpreted to include any medicaly verifiable physical or mental disorder which impairs employability. We believe, however, that there would be less confusion on the part of the public and even some professional people if the word "physically" were deleted and the term "handicapped individual" were consisttently used throughout the old and new acts, with the connotation of a person "under a physical or mental disability constituting a substantial handicapt to employment.'

5. In this connection we hope this committee will consider in what manner legislative action might best be taken to eliminate the word "physically" from the title of "National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week." This "week" was established in 1945 by act of Congress under Public Law 79-176. As you know, several years ago the President changed the name of the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped to eliminate the adjective "physically." Numerous Governors have followed suit. Therefore, the perpetuation of this word in the title of the "week" is an anachronism, which only an act of Congress can rectify.

6. We alluded earlier to an additional serious reservation we have concerning the effects of the limitation on the staffing of workshops under the proposed section (13f) of the act to those facilities and workshops constructed under the proposed amendments.

In our view, the importance of the provision for staffing is the tremendous potential it offers for the initiation of services of adequate quality. An initial boost is needed equally by programs which are being started in suitable buildings otherwise funded. The sound programs which can result from support at the outset are needed imperatively at this very moment. Frequently it is best in a new shop to start out in a temporary location until experience has been gained with the clientele and economy of that particular community. Redesign of a new and larger facility can then be more confidently worked out with the architect on the basis of firsthand knowledge of needs. The need for Federal participation in operational costs when the program is first getting underway is most critical. We believe that conditioning staffing assistance on new construction creates undesirable rigidity, stimulates premature freezing of program concepts, and penalizes those who, with equal potential for service, have been able to secure. adequate housing for their workshop without Federal aid, but are without the resources to launch a program of high quality and stability. We therefore recommend deletion of the words "in which a grant for a construction project has been made under this section" from lines 14 to 16 on page 9 of the bill.

In summary, while we do seriously propose the changes noted above, we support the bill in its entirety and welcome its provisions as a major advancement. We do wish to emphasize those aspects of the bill which extend evaluation services and improve the sheltered workshop programs. We underline the even greater benefits which would accrue if "staffing" assistance did not only follow construction aid. The intensive experience of the last decade has clearly shown workshops to be an important instrument for the rehabilitation and employment of the mentally retarded, both in competitive industry and under sheltered conditions. The bill represents a distillation of the experience of that decade and is a well considered refinement of the legislative proposals of previous years, which we have supported. We assure you of our even more vigorous support of the current measure; the need for these advances is now even more clearly evident.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. I have just had a chance to briefly look at your statement. I am sorry that I was not here for all of your testimony. I was attending another subcommittee meeting on

the higher education bill, but I want to compliment you and then also to take this opportunity to compliment the chairman of this committee for all that he has done, not only in so many fields, but what he has done for the mentally retarded. And with full knowledge but for his. interest in this and his leadership, very little would have been done in the United States and in the whole field for those who suffer mental and physical illness. Without any question there is no greater debt owed to anyone than we all owe to Senator Hill for all that he has done. I want to make that clear on the record.

Mrs. BOGGS. We second your sentiments most heartily. I think Senator Hill knows how highly we hold him in our esteem.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been most generous and kind and I feel deeply grateful to you, but I am sure that Senator Kennedy will agree with me that it takes a team to win the game. Mrs. Boggs here has been a very prominent and fine member of that team. We have all worked together.

Is that not true, my dear lady?

Mrs. BOGGS. I like to think that that is true, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And we have had a lot of help from the Kennedysa whole lot of help from the Kennedys; is that not true? Mrs. BOGGS. We have, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. A tremendous amount of help from the Kennedys. Mrs. BOGGS. That is indeed true. I might add that I think that with the passage of this act, which I am confident that we will complete the major initial element of the program which President Kennedy had adopted as a result of the work done during his administration.

The CHAIRMAN. Surely, President Kennedy was the most inspiring leader. He did so much to advance our programs for the mentally and physically handicapped and the mentally retarded, the mentally ill-and what we are doing in many ways here is simply carrying on the programs which he envisioned and which he proclaimed, is that

not true?

Mrs. BOGGS. That is very true.

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly want to thank you, Mrs. Boggs, very, very much indeed.

Mrs. BOGGS. It has been a pleasure and an honor.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Irvin Schloss, legislative analyst of the American Foundation for the Blind.

We are very glad to have you back with us.

You are the chairman of the Legislative Committee for the American Association of Workers for the Blind, is that not correct?

Mr. SCHLOSS. That is right, and I am also speaking for the American Foundation for the Blind.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you back.

You have been with us before, and always have been most helpful. It is an honor to have you here today.

STATEMENT OF IRVIN P. SCHLOSS, LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, AMERICAN FOUNDATION FOR THE BLIND, AND REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF WORKERS FOR THE BLIND

Mr. SCHLOSS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to summarize my written statement that I have submitted for the record. (See p. 148.)

In expressing endorsement for S. 1525, I am speaking for both organizations, the American Foundation for the Blind and the American Association of Workers for the Blind.

One just cannot overemphasize the value, the vital significance of vocational rehabilitation for a substantially handicapped person.

Along with adequate educational opportunities for handicapped children, I believe that vocational rehabilitation means equally as much, too.

All other services basically are supportive of these two major programs. Vocational rehabilitation is really the key to a normal way of life for substantially handicapped persons. It provides for many the opportunity to lead a normal life, to raise a family, to earn their own way, to be a part of society and to make a contribution to their community and to their country.

The bill we are now considering, S. 1525 would substantially improve the Federal-State program of vocational rehabilitation of the disabled. Virtually all of its provisions, especially the major provisions would specifically improve services for what I call the most severely disabled.

Under section 2 of the bill, the provision of evaluation of rehabilitation potential with the extended period for this would be particularly helpful for groups like the deaf-blind, the blind person with other additional disabilities, the people with cerebral palsy, and so on.

The provisions of section 3 for the construction of vocationaloriented rehabilitation facilities and workshops, as well as technical assistance and other types of supportive services designed to provide for very high quality services, will be extremely helpful to the most severely disabled. These facilities will be needed for adequate evaluation and diagnostic procedures, as training facilities and as places of employment for those individuals who just cannot, for reasons of multiple disability or other factors, engage in competitive gainful employment in outside industry.

And I should like to call attention to the provision eliminating the economic need factor for reader service for the blind being rehabilitated under vocational rehabilitation acts.

A blind student in college has a difficult time getting all of the outside reading help he needs. In fact, economic need becomes a highly relative factor for the relatively insignificant investment of FederalState funds involved in eliminating the economic need factor for reader service, the values to the individual blind student with that service would be immense. We would like to suggest that we believe that S. 1525 would substantially improve the program if an amendment were added. Other witnesses have already talked about this problem. It is the fact that in recent years some of the newer Federal-State relationship programs provide for an increased Federal share ranging from 75 to 100 percent. And this places the FederalState vocational rehabilitation program in a rather unfair or disad

vantageous competitive position. We would like, therefore, to recommend an amendment to section 2 of the existing law which would provide for at least a 75-percent Federal share for most of the services in the vocational rehabilitation grants to the States and a 100-percent Federal share for working with the most severely disabled, the most severely handicapped. These could be defined perhaps as the totally blind, the quadriplegics, the paraplegics, the high bilateral amputees and the like and we would suggest leaving the definition to the discretion of the Secretary. We believe that by providing for a 100-percent Federal share for this most severely disabled group they would receive more effective and more efficient services.

It does take much more time and skill on the part of rehabilitation counselors and other professional individuals working with them. And we believe that increased Federal support for this specific activity would be extremely helpful.

Another amendment that we would like to suggest would apply to section 3 of S. 1525, and this relates to occupational safety. The President's Committee on Occupational Safety has been working to promote increased interest in industry in observance of occupational safety standards as a means of preventing disability. We believe that it is only proper and fitting that legislation of this type, which provides for industrial-type operations in these workshops, in some of these rehabilitation facilities, should set the example, so to speak, and conform to minimum occupational safety standards which could be specified by the Secretary, using as a guide those developed by the American Standards Association.

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned standards of occupational safety. Was it your thought to have them adopt those standards?

Mr. SCHLOSS. Yes. Another amendment that we would like to suggest does not relate directly to this program but it involves a very important ancillary service to the work of the President's Committee on the Handicapped. We would like to recommend that a section be added to this bill the ceiling on appropriations in the enabling legislation. In recent years they have been faced with the necessity of coming here to Congress more and more frequently to have the ceiling on appropriations in their enabling legislation increased and this need for periodic appearance before the Congress, appealing to the Congress for this particular situation would be eliminated by removing the ceiling and setting up the appropriations in the normal budgetary fashion.

In closing I should like to restate our endorsement of S. 1525. We believe that with the amendments we are suggesting that the large, let us say, unmet need among most of the severely disabled in particular would be much better met that is now possible under the existing law. We, therefore, respectfully urge the subcommittee to favorably report the bill with these amendments that we have suggested.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schloss, I remember the splendid service you gave to this committee in reference to the legislation for increased funds for the American Printing House for the Blind. You were most helpful in that. And your testimony here this morning is most

helpful. It is certainly splendid. We deeply appreciate it and want to thank you, sir, for the testimony you have presented here this morning.

Thank you very, very much.

Mr. SCHLOSS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a number of telegrams here which we should like to make a part of the record.

One is from Mr. Braceland, chairman of the Committee on Principles Practices.

Another is from Henry P. Dart, president, and Ann Switzer, executive director, Connecticut Association for Retarded Children.

And another is from Whitney R. Kerchner, president, United Cerebral Palsy Association.

These telegrams and other correspondence will be put into the record at this point.

Miss MARY E. SWITZER,

Director, Vocational Rehabilitation Administration,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.

MARCH 31, 1965.

DEAR MISS SWITZER: When you testified recently before the Senate Subcommittee on Health on S. 1525, a bill to amend the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, I was sorry that I did not have the opportunity to question you more fully on several items which I feel are of great importance.

I have listed below eight questions which I believe are of significance for the mentally retarded in the proposed legislation:

1. The record shows truly impressive progress in rehabilitating the mentally retarded to employment, to the point where last year over 7,000 retarded were rehabilitated. On the basis of this experience, what have proved to be the benefits of rehabilitating this group of the disabled? What have you found to be the main problems? What are the reasons for our reaching so few of the vast number of retarded persons who could well benefit from vocational rehabilitation services?

2. Section 2 of the bill takes a new and progressive approach in investigating the potential of the retarded and the ways in which to determine such potential under the vocational rehabilitation system. How many mentally retarded will be involved under the program in section 2 during the first year? What estimate can you make of the number of retarded who would finally need this service? Even with the services proposed under this bill, how else are we to meet the real need?

3. What is the relation between the proposals made in S. 1525 and the President's program on mental retardation?

4. Plainly the improvements this bill would bring into the total rehabilitation program would advance the rehabilitation of the mentally retarded. Does this bill make any proposals which specifically mention the retarded?

5. S. 1525 makes various proposals for workshop construction and improvement. In what ways will these provisions benefit the mentally retarded?

6. What does the Administration have in mind in the proposed projects for expansion of services?

7. Does the provision in S. 1525 for statewide planning for vocational rehabilitation services have a bearing on planning for mental retardation activities? 8. The various new authorities and new programs will mean new demands for trained persons in the many professions involved in providing rehabilitation services. Have you taken this into account in making these proposals in S. 1525? I appreciated the fine testimony you gave the subcommittee and I look foward to receiving your comments on these additional questions.

Sincerely,

EDWARD M. KENNEDY.