certainly the sentiment of the people is that they rather, the organization of the blind in those States-would not join those organizations on a national basis.

I don't know what efforts have been made to keep the blind from joining local organizations, but there have been, I am sure, to keep them from joining some of the national organizations whose objectives do not appear to be in line with the objectives of the State agencies and their supporters.

Now, with respect to the rights to organize, we believe fully in the right of the blind to organize. We believe in the right of any group of American citizens to organize in order to achieve their goals.

The blind have already the right to organize. They seem to be doing very well indeed. In fact, it has been testified that over 300 organizations in 45 States are affiliated with the National Federation of the Blind.

I do not know a more striking success than that in any nationwide organization in all the rehabilitation field.

This hearing is certainly demonstrating that the blind have made full use of their right to organize and certainly the testimony being presented here is being presented in most admirable and convincing fashion.

But we would not by any means stand in the way of anybody organizing even though we might not agree with some of the methods that might be used by organizations to try to achieve their ends.

Now, our position in this hearing can be summarized, I think, in rather concise language. Our position is that practically all of the questions and problems that have been raised in this hearing are State issues and not nationwide issues.

Little emphasis, for instance, up to this time, at least, has been put on the provision that the Secretary of HEW consult with national organizations of the blind. In fact, we know that he does consult with national organizations of the blind and other national organizations, of other handicapped groups. He consults likewise with the National Rehabilitation Association which I represent.

I have sat by the side of representatives of the National Federation of the Blind as we consulted together with the Secretary of HEW on various problems.

As I say, these really are problems in the States and local communities and only in some of the States, probably six or eight States particularly, will be called to your attention or have been, for I have gone through the evidence and read Dr. tenBroek's testimony beyond the point at which he presented it orally.

Our contention is that these are local situations, that they ought to be solved on the local level just as these problems have been solved in many States already by good people of good will working together. They can be settled eventually in all the States.

It is our position that the State agencies for the blind, just as other State agencies are responsible to the Governors of their State; they are responsible to their State legislatures; they are responsible to their own boards so there certainly is a method of recourse on the part of people who object to the services they are rendering and the attitudes they are taking and to whom people can object if individuals actually are being intimidated to keep them from joining certain organizations for the blind.

So without trying to judge the issue, saying one side is right and the other is wrong, we recognize it as being a problem, a real problem, but one that should be solved on the local level and not on the State level.

For instance, I think that State agencies, and I think this goes from the Governor right on down, feel, and correctly so, that they are capable of supervising their own personnel. They would not look with favor, for instance, to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare being given authority to police their personnel practices in the States, which is what this bill when carried out to its practical conclusion would mean if it was implemented at all.

That means that if an individual in any State was accused of using the influence of his office to keep a blind person from organizing or joining an organization for the blind, that an accusation would be made to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, who would then have to go into the State and make an investigation to see whether that was justified or not.

If he thought it was justified, then he would have to withhold money from the State intended for rehabilitation of the blind in order to punish the State for the ill conduct of a specified employee.

That is the only way it could possibly work out from a practical standpoint.

Our contention is that these problems should be thought out on the local level and that is the only place that they can be practically solved. I would summarize by saying that our opposition to the passage of H.R. 14 is based upon, first, the fact we assume that it is not a proper area for Federal legislation, and

Second, that the passage of the bill would damage State-Federal relationships upon which the very welfare of the the blind depends in large measure.

Therefore, it would be unwise to take this particular step.

Now, let me say that we see no harm at all in requiring or Congress requiring the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, or any other secretary, to consult with the blind and other groups so far as there is not any intention, apparently, to single out one particular group and say this group should be consulted with, but by inference say that the deaf do not deserve such consultation, or the cerebral palsy do not desire legal protection in such consultation.

The principle of consultation is good and administrators ought to consult with these groups at both the State and Federal level, there is no question of that.

Now, I want to say a few words about the study bills. There are a tremendous number of problems with respect to which Congress ought to be interested, the answers to which might be found in the study of programs for the blind.

I will call attention to a few of them. The relationship between the social security programs for the blind and public assistance programs for the blind, and rehabilitation programs for the blind, very intimately connected and yet administered in different parts of the Government both at this level and other levels.

There is the matter of administrative patterns in providing service for the blind. We have a multitude of different patterns for administering services for the blind.

We are not able to say confidently at this time that one is better than another. Maybe an answer could be found in the study, a study of the deaf and the blind.

Are all blind people being serviced that need services? Are services adequate? If not, in what area are services needed? What is the most effective use of facilities for serving blind people?

Library facilities for the blind.

It is really staggering to think that it is true, which we realize it is, as Dr. ten Broek said yesterday, that not 10 percent of the adult blind can read braille. Things of this kind need to be looked into.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Let me interrupt you right there, Mr. Whitten. Do you have any suggestion about what we might do to improve that situation of the shortage of braille for the blind?

Mr. WHITTEN. I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, that I do not have any practical suggestion. You people have increased appropriations steadily along through the years for the Printing House for the Blind to make additional material available. I am prone to think that probably the library setup is a little cumbersome over the State. It may be that some investigation could be made profitably of the means that are being used to distribute these books and what agencies in the States are taking upon themselves the responsibility to try to promote this particular phase of the blind.

For instance, you probably know that there are no Federal funds available now to assist an agency for the blind that wanted to do so to provide independent living rehabilitation services for the blind, which is the absolutely necessary step-and by the way, the learning of braille would be a part of that to enable them to move to the to the point where they can achieve vocational rehabilitation in many instances.

I think that whole area needs investigation, but I certainly could not give you the answer to the problem at this time.

Mr. ELLIOTT. The thing that worries me about it is that I understand that braille is rather expensive, a rather expensive method of printing, a very expensive way of publishing the books and in many fields, I believe Dr. ten Broek pointed out yesterday, in many fields there are very few people who would be interested in a particular book.

Consequently, you have a very extreme cost and very few people relatively speaking who are interested in that particular book.

I do not know how we are going to solve that situation, but it certainly is apparent that there should be more braille material available to blind people.

Mr. WHITTEN. I think the answer partly must be found in provisions for getting blind people to libraries where this material can be available and not in putting the material in the hands of individual blind people.

I, for instance, was very much interested, in Mexico City this fall, in finding there that the Junior League of Mexico, incidentally, which is an affiliate of the junior leagues up here, had established such a project.

I saw numerous blind people coming into that library. We have some of this, of course, in this country.

But I think that is an area that is probably going to have to be expanded.

about

Mr. Chairman, we are not so much concerned with how you go this study. We are concerned that the group that makes the study be broadly representative of the public and the professional groups and the blind who are interested in these matters, for which reason we think that there is merit to the provision that is found, for instance, in the bill you introduced and the bill which Mr. Fogarty introduced.

In other words, we think it is not preferable to have spelled out in the bill exactly who and what organizations are going to be represented on the commission.

We think that more administrative consideration should be given to that matter. But we think it is extremely important that the study be made and we feel that a study, although it would be far from an investigation-I don't think anybody would interpret such a study as investigation of the programs for the blind-nevertheless, such a study would inevitably shed some additional light on this very problem that has been brought up here which I know is a very difficult one and one which the members of the committee are concerned about and hardly know what action should be taken at this time.

I think it would shed additional light on this problem as well as others.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.

(The formal statement of Mr. Whitten is as follows:)

TESTIMONY OF E. B. WHITTEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL
REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, my name is E. B. Whitten. I am executive director of the National Rehabilitation Association, an organization of 18,000 people who are concerned for the rehabilitation of the Nation's physically and mentally impaired persons. Organized in 1925, the association has throughout its existence promoted in every way possible the rehabilitation of all the handicapped, without regard to age or category of disability. The association was active in the passage of Public Law 113 of the 78th Congress and Public Law 565 of the 84th Congress, the latter being the basic Vocational Rehabilitation Act under which the State Federal program of rehabilitation is carried on and under which the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation administers research and demonstration and training programs. As the association's representative, I am glad to be able to testify on legislation pertaining to the blind. We have many blind people and persons working for the blind among our members, but we have never presumed to speak for the blind as a class.

Legislative proposals before the committee seem to fall into two main groups; first, the right of the blind to self expression through organizations of the blind bills of which H.R. 14 is one, and the "study" bills of which H.R. 356 and H.R. 1855 are examples. I shall speak first on the right-to-organize bills.

The National Rehabilitation Association is on record in opposition to these legislative proposals, and we shall attempt to give our reasons as clearly and briefly as possible. This legislation seems to be based upon two assumptions. One of these is that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the State agencies administering programs for the blind do not consult with authorized representatives of organizations for the blind in the development of programs affecting the blind and that Federal legislation is needed to force the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to consult with organizations of the blind and to "encourage" the States to do likewise. The second assumption seems to be that Federal and State officials responsible for administering programs for the blind are using the influence of their offices to keep the blind from joining organizations of the blind. We have not seen substantial evidence to validate either assumption.

With respect to the Secretary's consultation with organizations representing various categories of disability, I suppose it is difficult to always consult with every organization which might think its advice should be sought. There are so many such organizations that to do so would be quite a task. We do know, however, that organizations of the blind are consulted on major issues in rehabilita

tion, for we have sat with their representatives during such periods of consultation. I do not believe that anyone would object to a general policy statement in legislation that to the degree practical the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, or any other Secretary, so far as that is concerned, should consult with organizations of handicapped people and other organizations in the development of programs affecting them.

To require that such consultation be carried on with organizations of the blind without a similar requirement for consultation with other groups would appear to be unwise. Neither do I think that anyone could very well object to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare "encouraging" the States to consult with organizations of handicapped people and other organizations in the development of their programs, but I am not sure how much good such “encouragement" could do, since State usually prefer to handle things as they see fit without too much advice from the Federal Government. My experience has indicated that any group that has a genuine desire to be helpful and uses tactics conducive to the establishment of good human relations has no difficulty getting an opportunity to express its viewpoints to any State or Federal agency. With respect to the second assumption, that is, that officers of State and Federal agencies are using the influence of their offices to keep blind people from joining organizations for the blind, it may be that isolated instances of such may be found, although we do not personally know of any such cases. I am sure that proper disciplinary action would be taken by a State or Federal agency whose employees committed such indiscretions. It is certainly an error to assume that there is any general effort on the part of employees of States and the Federal Government to keep the blind from joining organizations of the blind. If such a situation did arise, we are sure that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the States already have plenty of authority to deal with it.

The National Rehabilitation Association supports, in principal, the proposals of H.R. 356 and H.R. 1855, which call for a nationwide study of programs for the blind. We believe that the introduction in each session of Congress of numerous bills bearing on problems for the blind, the philosophical conflict among those concerned for the care and rehabilitation of the blind, and the rapid growth of rehabilitation and social security programs for the blind in recent years fully justifies such study. If a study is made, it must, of course, be done on an impartial basis under the leadership of people with recognized stature and objectivity. It is not particularly important to us whether the study be carried on by a Presidential Commission as specified in H.R. 356 or a National Advisory Commission as outlined in H.R. 1855, by a Select Committee of Congress, or by a department of government. It is important that the body to guide the study be broadly representative of the professions and organizations concerned for the blind and of the general public. For this reason, we prefer the more flexible arrangement for appointment of the Commission which is found in H.R. 356. More important, probably, than the type of committee or commission to make the study is that it be well financed and able to secure competent staff for a complex job. The National Rehabilitation Association offers its assistance to this committee and to any study group that may be established. We believe that a properly conducted study will clarify many of the issues which now appear to be clouded and can become a springboard for improved services to the blind of this Nation; after all, it is this and this alone with respect to which all of us should be concerned.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much Mr. Whitten.

The gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mrs. GREEN. I am sorry I was called out for a telephone call, so I did not hear the first part of your testimony.

Will you tell me exactly what the National Rehabilitation Association is?

Mr. WHITTEN. Yes; it is a nationwide membership organization of 18,000 people. About half of these people are what we call professionals, physicians, counselors, therapists, and so forth, who work in rehabilitation programs of various kinds.

The other half are lay people, businessmen, members of civic clubs, women's organizations, and so forth, who joined the organization