no Member of Congress would deny the plain fact that citizen groups directly affected by Federal programs should be consulted in the formulation of policies concerning such programs. This is all my bill was designed to accomplish.

The tremendous contribution that organizations of blind persons can make to programs for the blind has been demonstrated clearly in my State of Missouri. As you may know, Missouri today has an advanced unique form of aid to the blind. It is unique in that it is geared to rehabilitate. The monthly aid check is intended as a helping hand to enable blind persons to become totally selfsupporting, not a heavy hand to keep them forever doomed to live in poverty. Let me explain the difference between our Missouri system and the present programs in existence in almost all other States. Under revision of the Missouri laws just recently passed by our legislature, blind men and women will soon be able to earn up to $250 a month and still receive a flat grant of $65 a month.

Compare this with other States in which only $50 a month of earnings are exempted from consideration in determining need. In addition, in Missouri, a blind person can have up to $10,000 in cash or property and still receive a monthly check in the amount of $65. Compare this with most of the other States in which a blind person can have little or no cash or property without affecting his monthly aid grant. I would like to point out to this subcommittee that this progressive and enlightened type of aid to the blind which we have in Missouri came about primarily through the work of the blind people in Missouri acting through their own organization, the Missouri Federation of the blind. It was in 1920 that the blind of Missouri joined together into their own organization, stumped the State and accomplished the almost impossible task of getting approval by the State voters for the creation of a State blind pension and a special property tax to pay for this pension. It has been the blind themselves through the Missouri Federation of the Blind that has increasingly improved this program through the years. It has been the Missouri Federation of the Blind with the all-out cooperation of the National Federation of the Blind of which it is an affiliate that has preserved this progressive Missouri system of aid despite the fact that Federal authorities have constantly waged a campaign to force Missouri to abandon its most liberal program and adopt the more stringent Federal type of aid. This has been the attitude of Federal officials despite the fact that the Federal Government makes payments to Missouri on the same basis as all other States. Those persons who meet our more liberal Missouri definition of need but do not meet the restrictive Federal definition of need are paid 100 percent from State funds. Since I have worked closely with the organized blind of my State in this struggle to preserve the State's progressive aid to the blind programs, I know at first hand the genuine contribution to their own welfare they have made. I know, too, that if the blind of Missouri had not had their own effective organization they would have long ago fallen victims to Federal pressure and the State would not now have this enlightened program designed to work toward total rehabilitation and total self-support of the blind individuals.

To illustrate what can be accomplished by this Missouri program of aid, I would like at this time to introduce into the record the statement of Mr. David Krause in support of my bill. Mr. Krause, who has been totally blind since childhood, was born and raised in Missouri. For several years he was a recipient of aid to the blind in my State. Today, however, he is no longer on aid. He is now a taxpayer and not a tax consumer. He is presently employed as a regulations officer, Department of Occupations and Professions, District of Columbia government. In addition he has gained such high respect since moving to Washington that he has recently been appointed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia government to be a member of the District of Columbia Commissioners Committee for Employment of the Physically Handicapped. I hope that you will read Mr. Krause's statement carefully. I think you will find it contains a vivid illustration of the need for consultation by Government agencies with the blind and the need of blind persons to be free to join organizations of the blind. Because I have seen for myself what blind persons can do for their own betterment when they have a strong vocal organization of their own, I hope this committee will consider the evidence carefully and having done so I hope it will act favorably on either my bill or one of the 55 other bills now before this subcommittee to protect the right of the blind to self-expression through organizations of the blind.

STATEMENT OF DAVID KRAUSE IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3047

My name is David Krause, and I live at 1523 22d Street NW., Washington, D.C. I have been totally blind since the age of five as the result of a rollerskating accident, and I would like to speak briefly in support of H.R. 3047 and the some 50 other bills to protect the right of the blind to self-expression through organizations of the blind.

At the present time, I am employed as Regulations Officer, Department of Occupations and Professions, District of Columbia government, and I am a member of the District of Columbia Commissioners Committee for Employment of the Physically Handicapped.

I would not be working in my present position today if there were no National Federation of the Blind and if I had not been free to become a member of it. I think you will understand my reason for making this statement when I tell you what transpired prior to the time that I obtained my present position.

For many years, the U.S. Civil Service Commission barred blind persons from positions in the Federal service for which they were fully qualified, simply because they were blind. I know this to be true because I experienced it.

In 1953 I filed a civil service application for the position of information specialist. Eligibility for this register is based solely on qualifying experience and no written examination is required. Despite the fact that I was a graduate of the radio department of Northwestern University and the NBC Radio Institute, despite the fact that I had worked as a staff writer for a large Chicago advertising agency and for radio stations in Springfield and St. Louis, Mo., despite the fact that my application showed more than the required qualifying experience, I was notified that my application was being rejected because I was blind and, therefore, did not meet the physical qualifications. Upon receiving notice of rejection of my application, I wrote to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission relating my story and pointing out that I had gained my qualifying experience as a blind person and that it did not seem fair to me that I should be arbitrarily barred from civil service eligibility simply because I was blind. When I wrote this letter, I did so as an individual blind person protesting against unfair discrimination. As an individual, however, my protests had no effect, and I was informed by the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission that nothing could be done about the sight requirement and that my appeal was being rejected just as my application had been.

Three years went by, during which time the National Federation for the Blind was hard at work attempting to bring about a change in civil service policy concerning sight requirements.

By 1956, I was a member of the National Federation of the Blind and know that it had been successful in getting the sight requirement waived for a blind chemist and for several other professional positions. I wrote to Dr. tenBroek, president of the National Federation of the Blind, and related what had happened to me in 1953. Dr. tenBroek suggested that I again apply for the position of "information specialist." I did so. However, this time I sent an accompanying letter to Mr. Phillip Young, then Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, stating that I was a member of the National Federation of the Blind and calling his attention to those instances in which the Civil Service Commission had, in recent months, waived the sight qualification for positions in which the National Federation of the Blind had demonstrated that blind persons were doing the work successfully. I was now no longer an individual blind person trying to make his voice heard, but rather, as a member of the National Federation of the Blind, I was part of the collective voice of more than 40.000 blind persons throughout the Nation.

As the result of this 1956 application and the accompanying letter, my eligibility was established on the information specialist register, and with further assistance from the National Federation of the Blind, I was able to obtain appointment to my present position.

I would like to add, that while blindness alone is still today keeping qualified blind persons off of civil service registers, the Civil Service Commisison deserves real commendation for the manner in which they are gradually removing more and more of these discriminatory sight requirements. The Commission's demonstrated genuine desire to rectify this situation is extremely encouraging to the many capable and qualified blind persons interested in Federal employment. In all fairness, it can be said that the Commission is working even harder today to remove sight requirements than it did in former years to retain them.

As I see it, there are two principal reasons why my 1956 application, was accepted after my 1953 application had been rejected. First, through consultation with the National Federation of the Blind, the Civil Service Commission had gained a more realistic understanding of the true capabilities of blind persons. And second, because I had been free to join the National Federation of the Blind, my voice was no longer the weak, insignificant voice of a lone blind person. Unfortunately, today, many State and private agencies which receive Federal funds for the purpose of administering various services to the blind, do not now consult with organizations of the blind in the formulation of policies concerning these programs. And what is even worse, some administrators and employees of these agencies are using their control over these programs to prevent blind persons from joining organizations of the blind. This is wrong and should be corrected. I, therefore, sincerely hope that this committee will see fit to act favorably upon H.R. 14 or one of the companion bills designed "to protect the right of the blind to self-expression through organizations of the blind."

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TAYLOR, JR., CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 14

My name is William Taylor, Jr. I am a member of the bar of Delaware County, Pa., and have been engaged for 23 years in the general practice of law at 10 South Avenue, Media, Pa. I am chairman of the legislative committee of the Pennsylvania Federation of the Blind, a nonprofit corporation with approximately 4,000 dues-paying members which is also an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind.

The blind of Pennsylvania, as of the Nation at large, sorely need a statute to secure for them the right of consultation with administrators in the formation and execution of policies and programs affecting the blind.

It is argued by some that conferring the right to be heard upon the blind constitutes a dangerous innovation and unwise precedent. However, even apart from judicial proceedings, the right of persons affected by policies and procedures to be heard is characteristic of all stages of our Government. Few of us have not, in one capacity or another, participated on the local level in a public discussion of zoning ordinances; such open meetings are so much taken for granted that most Americans would be astonished to learn that anyone, at least in this country, questions either the legal propriety or practical advantages of ascertaining what those involved want and desire.

A year ago, the Pennsylvania State Council for the Blind, our State rehabilitation agency, promulgated a body of rules and regulations governing the vending stand program. And, although the operators have formed an association to deal with the council, these men whose daily affairs are controlled by such regulations were not given an opportunity to consider or discuss them. They were just suddenly declared to be in effect. As one would expect, much justifiable dissatisfaction has resulted, and much of it could readily have been modified in advance if only the operators' views had been ascertained. The application of a little commonsense and fair play in such matters would prevent a vast amount of discontent and, most important of all, would give to the operators the sense of security which is possible only when opportunity for a hearing is given to those involved in the decisions made by officials. Surely what the blind ask is such legislation as that pending before this committee is only what is accepted as normal practice in other activities.

Only this single incident is cited, not because it is the only such incident but because it is representative of many others which might with equal relevance be cited.

For us in Pennsylvania a still more serious problem is presented by the widespread and persistent practice of discouraging blind individuals from joining organizations of the blind. Most effective of all deterrents is the common feeling of uneasiness which prevails; the feeling that very specific and unpleasant things will befall employees and persons directly or indirectly dependent upon the agencies if they join any organization of the blind. Within the past 2 months, an employee of the State council joined the Dauphin County branch of the Federation of the Blind and was promptly called to the front office and advised to resign her membership. In the spring of 1955, the wife of an employee of the council was elected secretary of the federation and duly informed that she would have to resign to protect her husband's job. She resigned. Again,

the operators of vending stands formed a trade association not long ago, whereupon the State employee in charge of the vending stand program exerted so much pressure upon the individual members as to cause them to resign and to join a dummy organization set up by the State employee. Official pressure is so strong that substantially all blind employees and persons in any way de pendent upon the agencies are afraid to attend, not only the meetings of organizations of the blind, but even picnics and social gatherings of any kind. Perhaps it will sound a bit lurid, but I know of my own experience that blind people in Pennsylvania who must rely upon the agencies find it prudent to visit in a clandestine manner the homes of their blind friends who are recognized as active in the work of the organized blind.

All of this may at first glance seem fanciful and the product of an overly active imagination, but one must bear in mind that jobs of every kind are extremely difficult for blind people to procure. Accordingly, the slightest threat of retaliation, intimidation, or official disapprobation goes far toward discouraging blind persons from engaging in any movement or organization when their doing so might entail official displeasure.

Perhaps the most telling argument in support of the proposition that this sort of law is sorely needed is to be found in the singular fact of the strong opposition on the part of the various agencies. It is difficult to explain or understand their opposition on any theory other than that they feel the need of being free to exert such pressure upon the blind. If they do not exert such pressure, then they have nothing to fear from this measure; for the most that could be said against it is that it is superfluous. If, as we maintain, such pressure is in fact exerted against the blind, then it should certainly cease.

The question has been raised as to the proper forum for the solution of these detrimental practices; and there are those who contend that they can best be dealt with by the State governments. To some extent, of course, this is true; and success has already been achieved to some degree through that approach. However, the scope and nature of the problems involved are such as to require Federal action to correct them.

The administrators of welfare programs are able to control the lives of the blind because the Federal Government arms them with enormous financial power to make and break individual blind people merely by disbursing or withholding. Altogether too often, the subservient blind man is given an attractive new vending stand purchased largely with Federal funds; while the blind man who ventures to join and work through an organization of the blind is denied a new stand. It is scarcely to be anticipated that an administrator will openly admit that a particular operator was denied a new or better stand because of his activities, but employees of the agencies see to it that the blind are quite aware of the frequency with which docile blind men and women receive preferential treatment.

By reason of the vast sums the Federal Government puts into the hands of these administrators, they are in a fiscal position of incomparable superiority over the organized blind, who perforce must work on meager budgets. The administrators have unlimited use of long-distance telephone service and unre stricted travel at public expense: in addition, their employees are expected to work against organizations of the blind.

Since funds which the Congess appropriates for the advancement of the blind are, to a shocking extent, being employed against the interests of the blind, we submit that it is within the province of the Federal Government to rectify this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Again, it is common knowledge among those acquainted with matters relating to the blind that these administrators have combined to resist organization of the blind and to do so on a national basis. The Congress need not rely upon our assertion of this fact, for Mr. Alsup's letter, introduced by the witnesses from Texas, furnishes clear and convincing documentary proof of the launching of this concerted attack upon the blind.

When officials from many States have thus united to stop the formation of organizations of the blind, and when it is recognized that these officials possess great power over the lives of the blind not only by virtue of the offices they hold in their respectvie States but even more by virtue of the huge sums of Federal funds at their disposal, truly it seems that this is a Federal question—not only in legal contemplation, but, what is more to the point, as a practical matter. Still another argument in support of action by the Federal Government arises from the self-evident fact that these administrators are using Federal funds both to hamper the blind in their exercise of the constitutional rights to freedom

of assembly, of speech and of petition.

Admittedly the blind have these rights as legal abstractions, but a right which the possessor fears to exercise exists chiefly as a legalistic concept. If armed men terrorize a community and put voters in such fear that they do not dare go to the polls, one would scarcely argue that they have the right to vote as a practical matter. In like manner, it can be said that a blind vending-stand operator has the theoretical right to join an organization of the blind, but if he has been given good reason to believe that his doing so will cause him to suffer discrimination in connection with his stand, is it fair to say that he has the right of assembly?

Since the founding of the Republic, substantially all controversies as to what are properly Federal problems and what are those which fall within the purview of the powers reserved to the States have been resolved on a pragmatic basis. An amusing example is presented by the laws seeking to protect migratory birds; for it was vigorously contended that the States have always controlled such matters as the issuance of hunting licenses and the fixing of open and closed seasons, but it is also an ornithological fact that the fowls of the air operate on a nationwide basis and that protection as a reality was possible only through Federal action. Hence, it was not only deemed a proper subject for congressional action, but such laws have been held constitutional by the Supreme Court. The above analogy may be a bit farfetched; but literally hundreds like it could be cited to demonstrate applications of the rule of reason in such matters. If, as a practical matter, the problem cannot be resolved on the State level, then both in law and in practice it is a Federal question.

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 1878 AND

SIMILAR BILLS

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a brief statement on behalf of the bill presently before your committee to protect the right of the blind men and women of America to associate, to speak, and to be heard.

It may seem a shocking thing that a specific legislative enactment should be necessary to safeguard to any group of Americans these inalienable rights of citizenship-the rights of free speech, of assembly, and of petition-which are indeed among the explicit guarantees of the first amendment. But it is a matter of record that such protection has become a vital necessity for those of our citizens who are without sight. The voluntary efforts of these handicapped persons to join and to form organizations of their own for purposes of selfexpression, have been seriously questioned and systematically obstructed by the officials of some public agencies, both State and National, which administer programs ostensibly for the welfare of the blind. Furthermore, the right of the organized blind to be consulted directly in the formulation and administration of such programs has been cruelly denied and disregarded.

No one disputes the right of any citizen, in principle, to speak and associate freely. But it is no secret that, until recently, the blind have been held in virtual protective custody as wards of society. They have been regarded, not merely as physically disabled, but as mentally incompetent and psychologically abnormal. Far from speaking for themselves, they have been spoken for by the sighted administrators of private charity and public welfare, upon whom the vast majority of blind men and women have depended for their livelihood if not for their very lives.

But these prejudices and superstitions concerning the limitations of blindness and the capacities of the blind can no longer sensibly be defended. Psychology and medical science have taught us that the blind are limited only in their physical vision, not in their talents and abilities. The democratic philosophy of the American creed has led us to recognize their rights to personal liberty and equal opportunity. And, finally, the free and independent organizations of the blind themselves have demonstrated their competence to speak for themselves, and to be heard, in the public conduct of their affairs.

Today there are voluntary organizations of the blind at every level of our society, from the neighborhood to the Nation. In some 46 States these groups have come together to form statewide associations, which in turn make up the national federation-the only nationwide organization which all blind people may join

But in various parts of the country the right of blind persons to join these organizations has been opposed by groups and individuals with a vested interest in the preservation of the outmoded institutions of bondage and protective