1. Make it possible for the agency administering rehabilitation programs for the blind in the States to present separate plans for the operation of their programs. This would permit agencies for the blind to operate their programs entirely separately from the general rehabilitation programs administered by State boards for vocational education.

2. Allow Federal reimbursement for books and other training supplies without regard to economic need of the client. Many States now furnish such training supplies to all pupils in the public schools. Rehabilitation training is now provided without needs test; that is,

tuition.

3. Provide for furnishing tools, equipment, initial stocks, and supplies, including livestock and capital advances, necessary to enable disabled individuals to enter upon their occupational objective. The term "occupational tools and equipment" as presently defined seriously restricts the States in providing placement equipment.

4. Allows Federal reimbursement for maintenance furnished dependents of persons undergoing rehabilitation.

5. Allows the Administrator, under general regulations to make grants to individuals, and universities and other public or private organizations and institutions for research projects and fellowships that will lead to improvement of methods and techniques in rehabilitation. It also allows the Administrator to establish and maintain courses, traineeships, and scholarships for training of individuals in fields relating to services to the disabled.

6. Allows the Virgin Islands to participate in the State-Federal program of rehabilitation.

7. Amends the present act by broadening its title to read the "National Services for the Disabled Act."

There are many who think that the term "rehabilitation" has so many meanings to so many people, that a change in the title of the act might result in better public information service.

My time before the committee has been given over chiefly to the discussion of the legislation proposed in H. R. 5370. I would like to mention briefly some of the features of H. R. 3095 also before the committee.

We

The administrative features have already been referred to. recommend that programs for the handicapped be kept in the Federal Security Agency. We believe in the principle of lay advisory committees to assist the Administrator in determining the policies. Whether such committees should be statutory is not of great concern

to us.

I have already mentioned that at the present time the Federal Security Agency does have at least two advisory committee, but the Administrator appoints him himself. They are not statutory. We believe in the principle of advisory committees such as are suggested in this legislation before you, H. R. 3095.

We believe that the purposes of title II to establish cooperative enterprises for the handicapped, can be promoted much better with grants-in-aid as provided in H. R. 5370 than by loans as suggested in H. R. 5370.

Title IV provides for pensions for those unfeasible for rehabilitation to be administered apart from the already existing welfare programs. There are many disabled people needing pensions. There can be no

reasonable doubt of that. Such pensions, however, should be provided through the regular State-Federal welfare set-up. This can be done either by establishing a general relief program or a special category for the handicapped. We understand that such proposals are before the Congress at this time, before the Ways and Means Committee.

We shall not comment upon title V which appears to promote a federally financed program of special education for the home-bound disabled. There is, of course, a great need in this field. We are satisfied to leave recommendations as to the method of approach in meeting this need to the specialists in special education.

Title VI sets up a revolving loan fund from which the States may borrow when funds for vocational rehabilitation are exhausted. The loans must be repaid within 30 days of the adjournment of the first session of the State legislature following the execution of the loan. We have not found any State that thinks it has authority to borrow from such a fund and hence doubt that such a fund would be used enough to justify its existence.

Of course, we have no objection to such a fund at all. We do not, however, believe that it can be used under the present statutes and under the present practical circumstances enough to justify it.

We take no exceptions to titles VII, VIII, IX, X, XI.

Mr. Chairman, in this discussion, we have attempted to make constructive suggestions for legislation for the handicapped. We believe you will find these recommendations sound, for they are based not only on careful study but also on the practical experience of many persons engaged in various phases of rehabilitation.

This committee has a challenging opportunity to render an outstanding service to the Nation in general and to its handicapped citizens in particular. In no field of social service does the money spent by our State and Federal Government yield greater returns than that spent on rehabilitation of its physically and mentally impaired people. No group is more appreciative of the efforts made in its behalf. If we can be of any further service to the committee, be sure to call

on us.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Whitten, then, you do not think we are too far apart?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is my opinion.

Mr. KELLEY. There were 63,000 rehabilitated in 1948-49. How many of them were placed in employment?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is a good question, Mr. Kelley. The definition of State-Federal people engaged in rehabilitation is that a person is not rehabilitated until he is actually placed on a job, has been on a job long enough so that there is a reasonable expectation that it is permanent. In other words, there were 63,000 cases that were on a job that was considered satisfactory at the time the cases were closed. I am glad you mentioned that, because I have noticed in testimony before the committee that there is a difference in definition. Some people talk of rehabilitation and placement, but we do not. He is not rehabilitated according to our definition until he is on the job. Mr. KELLEY. Do you know what the difference is between those who have been rehabilitated or placed on a job and those who are waiting to be placed on a job?

Mr. WHITTEN. I would hesitate to give those figures now. sure the Federal Security Agency when it appears will have tables which will give all those facts. I would be afraid to risk my judgment on some of those at this time.

Mr. WIER. I would like to clarify one thing in view of a question that I put to the preceding witness. I made some mention of the differential between allowances provided by certain States; for example, California as against Mississippi. I think I did mention Mississippi. Have you a differential there that creates a problem?

Mr. WHITTEN. In the rehabilitation program there is no differential. In other words, the Federal office deals with all of the States alike regardless of their wealth.

Mr. WIER. How about the State that carries out the benefit?

Mr. WHITTEN. It happens that in Mississippi the appropriations for vocational rehabilitation are higher than the average for the Nation.

Mr. WIER. How much is it for relief? That is where most of them

are.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is different; when it comes to the public-relief programs, that is different. For instance, the average pension for old-age assistance in Mississippi is $16 a month, and it goes as high as, I understand, $70 in some States. But that does not apply to re

habilitation.

Mr. WIER. Let us take the 48 States. Do you feel there is uniformity of effort in this field in the 48 States today?

Mr. WHITTEN. Are you talking about the rehabilitation field?

Mr. WIER. I said to Mr. Johnson a while ago that two-thirds of this bill, the Kelley bill, is devoted to rehabilitation, and one-third of it is a matter of setting up the finances necessary to do this rehabilitation. So that the major job of rehabilitation is in reestablishing people, putting them on their own. Now, if you are going to carry this program out to its ultimate success, are you not going to have to have uniformtiy through some central agency? I think it is very unfair to say that one State is going to have a much superior program to another State, just because that other State does not show much interest in the problem.

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, to answer your question, the States are not making equal efforts. However, I will say this, that in all of the States there has been a tremendous improvement in recent years, and it looks as though some of the States that have been lagging are beginning to wake up and their legislatures are making appropriations. For instance, there was an increase, I understand, of around 25 percent in the appropriations available from States for the year we are just entering as contrasted to the year before. In some of the States that have been doing rather poorly they are coming up pretty sharply. But there is not equality of effort at the present time.

Mr. WIER. Congressman Werdel raised a question about having a national agency. In your statement you say that this is generated on the State level?

Mr. WHITTEN. The programs are operated by the States, that is true, under terms of State plans or contracts entered into between the State and the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Federal Security Agency.

Mr. WIER. And all of the funds in this program have to be channeled through a State agency to the individual?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is correct.

Mr. WIER. So that the State still retains a major voice in the functioning of that agency, in Minnesota, California, or Mississippi? Mr. WHITTEN. That is correct.

Mr. WIER. That is all.

Mr. McCONNELL. In your statement on page 8 you refer to title II, and I was wondering if you did not mean there to refer to title III, "To establish cooperative enterprises for the handicapped"?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is a typographical error. It is title III that we are referring to.

Mr. McCONNELL. It should be title III?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is correct.

Mr. McCONNELL. Will you explain in a little more detail your preference for one bill over the other? You have shown a preference for grants-in-aid that would be embodied in H. R. 5577.

Mr. WHITTEN. Well, as I understand it, in H. R. 3095 the help to States would be based largely upon loans. When some agency decided, for instance, to establish the so-called cooperative enterprise for the handicapped, they would make application for a loan which would have to be paid back under certain terms.

There is another section, I notice, that provides for the loans to be nonliquidating under certain conditions, and that is not very clear to me. We have a feeling that people would be very reluctant in the States to borrow money they knew they would have to pay back, because operating any sheltered workshop cannot be done on a financially sound basis; there are going to be deficits. The very nature of them is such there are bound to be deficits. We think the States would be very reluctant to borrow and we believe the grants-in-aid approach is the soundest approach to the proposition; in other words, 50-50 is the way it is in the bill we are referring to; 50 percent State and 50 percent Federal, but 50 percent will be a grant, not a loan.

Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Whitten, I think that you move along with a southern drawl handicap faster than any person who has ever appeared before this committee. The remarks that I made a while. ago were directed to title IV of H. R. 3095 in regard to centralizing the future relief set-up.

Mr. WHITTEN. The pension set-up?

Mr. WERDEL. Yes. I think you have covered that at the bottom of page 8 of your statement.

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes.

Mr. WERDEL. You believe that should be carried on under the present existing set-up of State-Federal welfare?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is our feeling. You see, H. R. 3095 provides these pensions for the handicapped, which would be administered by the State rehabilitation agencies, or agencies at their direction. It appears that they could delegate this to somebody else if they wanted to do so. Frankly, we do not think that makes much mix. In other words, the rehabilitation people would rather be engaged in pure rehabilitation and let somebody else administer the public assistance program. We think that the regularly established agencies are the places that it should be administered.

Mr. WERDEL. I enjoyed your statement. That is all.

Mr. KELLEY. You made this statement in your written paper:

The need for additional trained personnel to render specialized rehabilitation service is even more acute now than it was 3 years ago.

I remember 3 years ago that question came up before the committee and was very strongly emphasized. Will you tell the committee the reason for that shortage now after 3 years?

Mr. WHITTEN. I think 3 years ago, Mr. Chairman, there was a feeling that a good deal of the personnel that was needed would come out of the armed services. For instance, the Army had trained a lot of people in so-called connected medical types of work, and there was a while when there were applications for a large number of those. They were quickly absorbed. When I was in Mississippi I tried to hire a specialist for the rehabilitation of the deaf. I never did find one. I wanted a man who was a specialist in the rehabilitation of the mentally retarded, to lead our staff. I was not able to find one at all.' Mr. KELLEY. Where are these people trained?

Mr. WHITTEN. The training facilities are not as plentiful as they ought to be. However, there are several universities in the country, 10 or 15, that train occupational therapists and physiotherapists. The American Medical Association approves certain colleges for that, but the colleges are not turning out enough people to do the job.

Mr. KELLEY. I wonder if this is true: It is so difficult now for the young men to get into the medical schools because the facilities are not available. Does the same thing apply to this? Are there more applicants than can be cared for?

Mr. WHITTEN. No. There are not many people who are attempting to enter some of these fields. The American Foundation for Infantile Paralysis is having to pay the expenses of workers, pay all their costs, to get them trained as physiotherapists, to take care of their polio cases. They are having to give scholarships that amount to almost 100 percent of the cost of training. It is a situation that is a little hard to understand, but it is a very pressing one, and unless there is some incentive for people to enter these fields right now they will not be entering them in sufficient number.

We feel that a good many people who want to be doctors but cannot get into the medical schools may eventually end up in some of the related fields. We hope that will be true.

Mr. KELLEY. Is the remuneration for specialists in here ample? Mr. WHITTEN. No, sir; I would not say it is. There has been a considerable increase in the wage paid physicotherapists and occupational therapists in recent years, but it is still not attractive enough to attract large number of people. Of course, in the State agencies, for instance, they are mostly confined to schedules that are set by State civil service commissions or by State plans, and very frequently those State salaries are not as high as the infantile paralysis foundation pays from its own funds. The burden falls unusually heavily upon State agencies in attempting to hire specialists in various fields.

Mr. KELLEY. You feel that you could have rehabilitated more than 53,000 if you had had sufficient specialists?

Mr. WHITTEN. I do not doubt it at all. On my staff in Mississippi, when I was down there, I did not have a person who could talk intelligently to a person who was deaf. You had to go through an interpre