In the Senate an amendment was adopted, preceding the last sentence, as follows: "Or for charitable, industrial, educational, or benevolent purposes, to any person, corporation, or community not under the absolute control of Porto Rico." In the bill this provision is omitted, so that the paragraph will read as originally prepared and adopted by the House. The construction of this paragraph arose for consideration upon the passage of an act by the Porto Rican Legislature providing for the sending of 12 young men each year to the United States to be educated at the expense of the island in agriculture and the mechanic arts. It was held by the auditor and attorney general of Porto Rico that this was prohibited by the provision above referred to. The provision was again under consideration when the Legislature of Porto Rico attempted to pass legislation in aid of the sufferers from the earthquake, which destroyed a large amount of public and private property, as well as a large number of human lives. It was held that such legislation was prohibited by the provision under consideration. It was the conclusion of the committee that the other provisions of the paragraph were sufficient to guard against the passage of laws for sectarian or religious purposes, and that the Legislature of Porto Rico should be relieved of the restriction which is recommended to be omitted. The other provision of the bill as reported provides for an amendment to section 3 of the organic act, which provides that "No public indebtedness of Porto Rico, or of any subdivision or municipality thereof, shall be authorized or allowed in excess of 7 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of its property. Porto Rico is as yet poor as compared with any portion of the United States. Under Spanish rule, the island was kept poor by the exactions of the Spanish Government. Most of the accumulation of property has been made within 20 years under the American occupancy. Progress has been made which on the whole has been remarkable. Still it is impossible to provide for schools and the necessary public buildings and other improvements demanded by the progress and development of the island. Especially is this true in the remote rural sections and municipalities. The current rates of interest paid range from 10 to 18 per cent. The amount of money in circulation is very small, amounting to about $4 per capita. Even the rapidly growing capital city, San Juan, finds it impossible to provide an adequate water system with the limitation of 7 per cent as provided in the organic act. In many parts of the island schoolhouses can not be built to provide school facilities for the children because of this limitation. Only about 65 per cent of the school population have adequate school facilities. After a careful consideration of the whole subject your committee recommends in the bill presented an increase in amount of the limitation from 7 to 10 per cent. This, your committee believes, will be entirely safe and necessary in order to provide for the public improvements absolutely necessary. O SENATE. 66TH CONGRESS, 3d Session. VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION. { REPORT No. 675. JANUARY 6 (calendar day, January 7), 1921.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. KENYON, from the Committee on Education and Labor, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 4643.] The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4643) to amend an act entitled "An act to provide for vocational rehabilitation and return to civil employment of disabled persons discharged from the military or naval forces of the United States, and for other purposes," approved June 27, 1918, as amended by the act of July 11, 1919, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass with an amendment. This is a bill to amend the present vocational rehabilitation act relative to persons discharged from the military or naval forces of the United States. The first law on this subject was approved June 27, 1918. This was amended by the act of July 11, 1919, and the present bill is to amend section 2 of the original act as amended by special act of July 11, 1919. Briefly the changes are as follows: First. On page 2 the new part inserted is in this language or in the military or naval forces of any ally of the United States in the late war, if a citizen of the United States immediately prior thereto and having resumed such citizenship if lost by reason of any oath or obligation taken for the purposes of entering such allied service. and will be referred to as amendment No. 1. This amendment extends the present vocational training for persons who were in the late war, and gives this training to citizens of the United States who were in the military or naval forces of any ally of the United States in the late war. One illustration will make plain what this amendment is intended to cover. Suppose a citizen of the United States went into the Canadian Army and was injured and suffered disability to such an extent that were he in the Army of the United States he would have been entitled to vocational training. The present law would not cover his case. The amendment would make it possible for him to secure the training. It is impossible to state how many soldiers would be affected by this amendment. In the evidence before the committee it was disclosed that there were some 10,000 American boys in the Canadian Army. How many were injured and suffered such disability as would entitle them to vocational training it is impossible to ascertain. There are no figures available. Amendment No. 2.-This amendment is the language on page 2, line 9, as follows: in the judgment of the board, constituting a vocational handicap, or of a degree of 10 per centum or more. Some explanation is needed to make this amendment clear. The original act (June 27, 1918) defined the following persons as being entitled to vocational training with maintenance pay: * who * * * is unable to carry on a gainful occupation, to resume his former occupation, or to enter upon some other occupation, or having resumed or entered upon such occupation is unable to continue the same successfully. This narrows to a comparatively small number the men who would be entitled to training. By the amendment of July 11, 1919, this provision was liberalized by striking out the above words and substituting: *** who, in the opinion of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, is in need of vocational rehabilitation to overcome the handicap of such disability. This section now requires, therefore, that a man have a disability which is a vocational handicap because of which he requires rehabilitation. Section 3 of the act allows the board to provide courses of rehabilitation without cost of instruction for the benefit of any person who is disabled “* * under circumstances entitling him * to compensation hereof." * * * * and who is not included in section 2 The Bureau of War Risk Insurance is the only agency which can determine whether or not a man is disabled "under circumstances entitling him to compensation." The war risk insurance law provides that a man can not be awarded compensation unless he is disabled to the extent of "ten per centum or more.” As the law now stands, the Vocational Board can grant training with maintenance pay to those who need vocational rehabilitation to overcome a handicap of a disability, and can grant training without maintenance pay to persons disabled under circumstances entitling them to compensation and who are not included in the above. This has worked an injustice and aroused considerable feeling among men who, with practically the same kind of disability, could not secure the same vocational training. It may be helpful to state a few examples which illustrate this situation: (A) A man partially deafened in the service was a farmer before he went into the service. He is entitled to and awarded compensation by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance because his disability is 10 per centum or more. (a) He does not need training to "overcome the handicap," because he was a farmer before entering the service. The board can not give him training with pay. (b) The same would apply if the man were a boiler maker, wood finisher, or had any other occupation which did not require acute hearing. (B) Same man with same disability, that of partial deafness, was a stenographer before he went into the service, is entitled to and awarded compensation. (a) He can be trained by the board with maintenance pay because he does need training to overcome the handicap of his disability. (6) Same would apply if man were a lawyer, clerk, or had followed any other occupation before entering service which required acute hearing. (C) A man has received a minor injury to the left hand. He is awarded compensation. He was a lawyer, clerk, bookkeeper before he went into the service. (a) He can not be awarded training with maintenance pay because a minor injury to the left hand does not handicap him to the extent that he needs vocational rehabilitation in his occupation as lawyer, clerk, or bookkeeper. (D) The same disability to another man who is a pianist, a machinist, shoe repairer, or follows any other occupation which requires the full use of both hands is given compensation and can be awarded training with pay by the board because he needs vocational training to overcome the handicap of his disability. (E) A man receives an injury to his foot, for which he is awarded compensation of 10 per centum or more. If his prewar occupation were stenographer, bookkeeper, or operator of some kinds of machines, he would be entitled to compensation but would not need vocational training to overcome his handicap because he would not have to stand on his feet. (F) If the same man with the same disability, injury to a foot, were a dancing master, farmer, or street car motorman, he would need training to overcome the handicap of his disability. On the other hand, there are cases where men would not be entitled to compensation under the finding of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, but who would be vocationally handicapped and entitled under section 2 of the law to vocational training with maintenance pay. It may be well to cite some instances of this: For instance: (G) A man was kicked in the mouth by a mule and his upper lip split. He was not entitled to compensation, because, in the opinion of the War Risk Insurance Bureau, he was not disabled to the extent of 10 per centum. On the other hand, being a clarinet player, he needed training to overcome the handicap of the disability and was entitled to training with maintenance pay. (H) Another man had a slight injury to his hand which did not constitute a 10 per centum disability. Before he went into the service he performed a specific work in one of the cotton mills of the South. He could not return to that occupation because of the injury to his hand, and needed vocational rehabilitation to overcome the handicap, and the board can give it to him under Section II. Therefore the situation arises where men who went into the service and who received nearly the same disabilities are put in different classes when they return from the service because of their prewar occupations. One agency of the Government, to wit, the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, will grant the same benefit-that is, compensation for the injury-while another agency, to wit, the Federal Board for Vocational Education, will have to deny to one man what it can give to another. The purpose of this amendment, and the effect of the amendment, is to allow the Vocational Board to train all persons who are vocationally handicapped and all who are receiving compensation from the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the action of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance depending upon whether the disability is to a degree of 10 per cent or more. This relieves the friction and criticism that arises from the present situation. It is impossible to determine how many men will be affected by this. The particular situation in the present law may be shown by a copy of a letter sent by Senator Phipps to the Federal Board for Vocational Education regarding the case of a gentleman in Denver and the reply of the director of said board to Senator Phipps. Mr. UEL W. LAMKIN, Federal Board for Vocational Education, UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. LAMKIN: Mr. Melvin P. Schindel, of Denver, Colo., writes me that he is at present receiving compensation on the basis of $33.33 from the War Risk Bureau, but that he has only been granted vocational training under section 3 instead of section 2 of the act. He informs me that he will, therefore, be obliged to give up training entirely because his disability is such that he can not work at the same time he is receiving instruction by your board. He states that the board in refusing to grant him section 2 training, which would entitle him to an allowance for his support while going to school, took the position that his deafness did not interfere with his following the life of a farmer. He does not desire to be a farmer and is now taking training at a business college in Denver, where, of course, he has no opportunity to do any farming even if he should so desire. I shall appreciate your careful investigation into this matter as well as your advice concerning the possibility of granting Mr. Schindel section 2 training. Yours, very truly, LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS. Hon. LAWRENCE C. PHIPPS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DECEMBER 31, 1920. DEAR SENATOR PHIPPS: Replying to your letter of December 27 concerning Mr. Melvin P. Schindel, under the provisions of the present law Mr. Schindel, who was a farmer before going into the service and who is partially deaf as a result of his service, is not entitled to training with maintenance pay, or under the provision of section 2. This section, as you will note by the inclosed copy of the act, provides that we may give such persons as are in need of vocational rehabilitation to overcome the handicap of their disability, training with pay. Mr. Schindel having been a farmer before entering service can no doubt return to his prewar occupation without serious vocational handicap. Section 3 allows us to give the courses without cost of instruction but with no maintenance pay, to men who have been disabled under circumstances entitling them to compensation, as Mr. Schindel has been disabled. Senate bill 4643, introduced by Senator Kenyon, would cover such a case as this and allow us to give Mr. Schindel training under the provision of section |