Page images


found the pipes down and everything else because the fellow could not make much money that way. He could make more money if he threw the hoods over the machines away. We have had to threaten them with arrest sometimes in order to keep the hoods on the machines. That is a job for the union; to discipline their members.

Mr. KELLEY. You made some reference to the number of amputees from the Second World War. The figure generally quoted is 16,000. I believe the figure was 4,000 in the First World War.

Mr. HiNEs. That is occasioned by the fact that the technique improved considerably. In the Second World War they got so they could blow their legs and feet off with the land mines. After the Battle of the Bulge, there was an influx of those fellows who were brought into the hospitals at Atlantic City. They used to get off the trains in North Philadelphia. You could see the trains coming in and those fellows hobbling along on crutches, and invariably the injury was below the knee. We are employing a lot of those follows. Here and there an extra man is put on the job between two of our members. Our members teach him the technique; how to take care of his wheels and tools and things of that sort.

I might add that 2 years ago we were awarded a bronze plaque by the War Dads in a ceremony at the Washington Hotel, which was attended by Mr. Green and Mr. Frye of the metal trade, and a number of other people. It was presented to us by the commander of the War Dads for service over and above the line of duty in our organization. We are proud of what we have done in that connection.

Mr. KELLEY. I know that what you have done over the years has come out in testimony before.

How successful are you in taking care of arm amputees?

Mr. HiNEs. In our trade we cannot do that because a man needs his two hands. With one leg, or no legs, he can get along well. He is just as capable, and many times more capable, than the other fellow, because he is conscious of his handicap and he does not take any chances.

Mr. McCONNELL. I know the interest that Mr. Hines has had in safety measures. He has been in the work for years, and I want to congratulate him and thank him for appearing before the committee.

Mr. HINES. We have put a lot of effort into that, Congressman, during my term. I myself went through the State and attended safety meetings. I set up a program among our inspectors to carry forward the work of safety, realizing that was perhaps more important than inspection because more could be accomplished in that direction, through a process of education, than there could be through policing the industry. We have an inadequate force. We probably will always have an inadequate force for a State like Pennsylvania, and education outweighs police efforts in every consideration.

I want to thank the chairman for the opportunity of presenting the views of the American Federation of Labor and sincerely hope something will come out of this hearing and your efforts to get legislation through this session.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Hines.
We will now hear from Dr. Francis J. Brown.


Dr. Brown. My name is Francis J. Brown, staff associate of the American Council on Education and a member of the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. As you know, the American Council on Education is a voluntary nonprofit organization, its membership including 115 national organizations in education and some 925 colleges and universities.

For some 9 years I have also been secretary of the committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education. This committee has concerned itself across the years with the many problems involving governmental relationships in our institutions of higher education. Because this bill does not fall specifically in the field of colleges and universities, the committee has not specifically acted upon it, but it has endorsed the legislation in principle.

One of the major problems that has constantly been before our committee has been the multiplicity of relationships of the various agencies of the Federal Government dealing with various aspects of the same problem. For example, in our planning in relation to the military training programs in the colleges and universities, it was necesrary to work almost independently with the Departments of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, as well as several nonmilitary agencies. Similarly, in relation to the exchange-of-persons program, contacts must be continually maintained with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of State, and the United States Office of Education.

I have used these illustrations as specific examples in a field other than that of this particular bill to show the effect of overlapping agencies and the consequent difficulty in developing a cordinated program. It is because this bill seeks to eliminate much of this duplication of effort and overlapping of the work of agencies in the field of services to the physically and mentally handicapped that I meet with your committee this morning urging your favorable consideration of #. R. 3095. Services to the physically handicapped are now available through the activities of a number of governmental agencies, but at no point is there the necessary organization to coordinate these efforts. While the various agencies each seek to render service in the specific field of its authorization, it is the inevitable tendency to think in terms of organizational services. Each provides assistance for a particular aspect of the individual, but no agency at present has sufficient total responsibility to think of the individual as a person and to render total service to him as an individual either drectly or through havng sufficient authority to corodinate the activities of the various governmental agencies. The proposed Federal Commission and its advisory council, both of which would be provided for in the proposed bill, would have this authority. The bill also would provide for the transfer of certain governmental agencies to the Commission, thus providing a direct channel for a coordinated program for the mentally and physically handicapped.

I should like to point out that the bill does not contemplate any considerable expansion of existing services. Its first purpose is to transfer such services to a single agency in order that they may be developed into an integrated program with the handicapped person as the focal point.

I do not propose to discuss the details of the legislation nor the need for the services thus coordinated. Others have presented such data before this committee. I should like, however, specifically to call attention to three further needs which are not specifically provided for in the proposed legislation. Title V, section 501, provides for educational grants for unfeasible cases. It authorizes additional agencies, including nonprofit institutions of higher education, to provide special services to handicapped persons that are commonly known as shut-ins. Such provision is good, but there is also need to provide subsidies to educational institutions in order that they may give special education and training to handicapped individuals who are able to attend the institutions and for whom special services are necessary in order that their education may be effective. In some instances this will entail special courses; in others, special recording and duplicating devices, as well as other specific help.

Financial assistance should also be available to educational institutions to provide guidance and counseling for the disabled. The bill provides for the assembling of information about job opportunities but has no specific provisions to assure that such information is made of greatest usefulness through personal consultation with disabled persons. Very early in the veterans' education program the Veterans Administration recognized the importance of guidance and counseling, especially among veterans requiring vocational rehabilitaton and attending institutions under Public Law 16 for disabled veterans. Through cooperation with colleges and universities, some 350 guidance centers were established. In a recent sampling survey made by the American Council on Education, there was almost universal testimony both from the institutions and from the veterans as to the vital importance of such guidance and counseling.

A third area of service not specifically provided for, especially under title V, is that of research as to the most effective types of training for the vocational rehabilitation of the physically handicapped. Through contracts with the Federal Government, educational institutions are spending vast sums for research in terms of instruments of war, with very little available through the Federal Government for research in terms of the vocational rehabilitation of the individual through education.

I would therefore strongly urge that in finally reporting out H. R. 3095 the committee expand title V to provide at least some limited amount of money to assist institutions in doing all three of the things which I have described: (1) providing special assistance to the physically handicapped who are enrolled in their institutions, (2) making available such number of guidance and counseling centers as to assist the disabled in the wise choice of their vocation and in the best training program for rehabilitation, and (3) conducting some limited amount of controlled research as to the most effective educational

program for the vocational rehabilitation of the handicapped.

There is one other problem of relationship which perhaps has been deliberately omitted from this legislation. I refer to the education of

the disabled veteran under Public Law 16. While it is true that the Federal Government has perhaps a more direct responsibility for the veteran who was disabled in the service of his country, the bisl should in my judgment provide for some closer coordination between the readjustment program for servicemen and that envisaged in this bill for the nonveteran. For example, the guidance and counseling centers might well serve the nonveteran, since these centers are in the colleges and universities and administered by them. Information regarding employment opportunities is of equal usefulness to both veterans and nonveterans. While it is apparently envisaged that the Veterans Administration will continue to conduct its own vocational rehabilitation program for veterans, the bill should specifically provide for closer coordination between the program of the VA and that of the Federal Commission for services to the physically handicapped.

The demands made upon this Congress are almost unprecedented in their multitude and in their far-reaching effect not only upon our own Nation but also upon the world. This bill is, however, in a somewhat different category than other proposals before the Congress. Its primary purpose is to coordinate existing services, and the amount of money involved is relatively small. Even if it involves vastly greater expenditures, our Nation cannot afford even in our concern for national security to neglect those of our own citizens who, through the unfortunate circumstances of birth, disease, or accident, are physically or mentally handicapped. I sincerely hope the committee will favorably report out this legislation and give consideration to the proposed minor suggestions. I hope, too, that it will be enacted both speedily and favorably in this session of the Congress.

Mr. WIER. He brings up a relationship here between this agency in this field and the possibilities of what the schools and universities might contribute in the advancement of independence by the physically handicapped.

While labor has concerned itself with perhaps an immediate problem of taking the handicapped and getting them into jobs as rapidly as possible, I am wondering now whether you know of any school or college, with their research facilities, that has made any study of fitting into industry or professional life people of various incapacities?

Mr. Hines said that they could take many people who have a leg or both legs and fit them into many of their positions when the physically handicapped are in a sitting position, and that they can produce perhaps more than the fellow now handicapped.

Mr. Kelley asked, “What do you do with a man with one arm; what do you do with a blind man?” Has any study been made in the educational institutions as to the possibility of fitting him into a professional status?

Dr. Francis. There are two studies that have been made by the American Council on Education. One was the study which was subsidized by the Disabled American Veterans, the DAV. That study was made specifically to determine the kinds of programs that colleges and universities and schools

Mr. WIER. I am not talking about programs. You people program too much. I am talking about a practical application of taking on a fellow with one hand, one leg, or blind. I know where they pick them up in the blind field. Mr. Hines could have said that the broommakers have taken in a lot of blind people.


Dr. BROWN. This particular study was primarily in terms of the kind of training that would be necessary, and the kind of training facilities available in order that the individual then might procure employment. The study was made of some forty different institutions in the United States. The center of the investigation was the University of Minnesota.

Then the other study has been of the guidance and counseling phases of the program to determine whether or not the kinds of information you are asking for are adequately transmitted to the individual to help the person make his own decision.

In other instances, the reports are extremely favorable as to the kinds of things being done. I agree with you very heartily, sir, there is a very grave need for study, even more comprehensive than by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or any other agency at the moment, to determine the kinds of handicaps and the degree of restriction of employment which that kind of handicap has.

Mr. WIER. That is what I am getting at.

Dr. Brown. That would certainly, in my judgment, be one of the very important areas of research that this commission would ask to be looked into. It is certainly basic to any readjustment program.

Mr. BAILEY. You raise a question that is basic here in that you propose in discussing H. R. 3095 that grants be made to the colleges for doing work in rehabilitation and fitting disabled persons. That is pretty much in contrast with the present procedure under the operation of the Federal Security Agency.

I know that there has been considerable testimony before the committee about a rehabilitation center in Virginia. To what extent would your proposal, if it were enacted by the Congress, to set up this independent commission involve the abandonment of these centers already set up directly under the Federal Security Agency?

Dr. Brown. I would say not at all, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. Do you think that they could be correlated and work together?

Dr. Brown. They could be correlated, and the educational institutions would be used only to the degree where they could supplement the services already available through the Government.

Mr. BAILEY. I take it that there were no facilities in the colleges and that made necessary the setting up of these centers; is that right?

Dr. BROWN. Right, plus the fact that the educational institutions have not been sufficiently aware of their responsibilities in this field, and that is one of the reasons why the American Council is particularly interested in this particular piece of legislation. Mr. BAILEY. I want to thank


Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown. Thank you very much for the privilege of appearing

before you.

Mr. WIER. Do you know of any man or department in any of the universities or colleges today who could sit here and say, "I think we have fields of endeavor in this country into which we can fit any kind of crippled individual.” Has anyone that kind of information?

Dr. Brown. Not at the present time.

Mr. KELLEY. We will now hear from our colleague, Representative James E. Van Zandt.

« PreviousContinue »