For example, the number of members of the Committee or the total amount authorized in the bill for the expenses of the Committee. I am firm in the conviction that the Advisory Committee should be independent of Government agencies, of any set forms and rules of procedure that would interfere with what we might call a free and unbiased study of all of the problems dealing with the blind in America.

The oldest Federal statute, as I recall, concerning the blind dates back to 1879. From that time on we have had a veritable hodgepodge of laws interposed here and there throughout a large number of Government agencies. Surely there should be interest in the establishment of a temporary National Advisory Committee for the Blind to make recommendations to make possible more coordinated services and uniform standards for our blind programs.

Many Congressmen have expressed their interest in this legislation and at least 20 of my colleagues in the House have introduced this same measure, or a similar measure. Without any solicitation from me, hundreds of letters have come to my desk supporting this legislation.

I sincerely hope your committee will report favorably on this bill with any appropriate amendments that in the judgment of the committee may improve the legislation.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Wainwright, a member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the subcommittee on the minority side, is also a sponsor of a bill similar to the one you have testified about. I will recognize Mr. Wainwright for any questions.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. As usual, Mr. Matthews, you gave a distinct and clear-cut statement of the program. I wondered if you would care to at this time go into the nub of the controversy and enter into a discussion of what was called in the last Congress the Baring bill, or the other viewpoint or other approach.

I presume that that is what the committee will be faced with, either the approach that you present to us or the approach of the Baring bill. Under date of July 1 of last year, you wrote to Chairman Barden, of the committee, a very clear-cut and comprehensive letter which, in effect, was a memorandum pointing out some of the fallacies, to use the expression that you used, in the bill, the viciousness, of this other approach.

You and I have not discussed this, so I do not know whether I am putting you on the spot or not, or whether you would like to discuss it or do it informally. I think the question might just as well be aired, and that the members of the committee have the facts before them. Actually, there is no one who knows more about it than you to let us have the other side.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Wainwright, let me say at the outset I appreciate very much your interest in this legislation. I am delighted to proceed to try my best to answer your question.

I would like to say at the outset I hope that I did not use as strong a term as "viciousness" as my own word in describing the other approach to this legislation.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Let me put it this way, Mr. Matthews: that the impression I got was that some of the phases of the other approach

would have a vicious effect. I think that may be a better way to put it. Mr. MATTHEWs. What has happened, I think, is that both Mr. Wainwright and I have received information from a gentleman who is a sociologist at Duke University. I do not recall his name right now. But he analyzed the approach to this problem as would be proposed in the type of legislation that the gentleman from Nevada discussed.

I want to say this: that I would like to go on record as not being opposed to any good approach, and I know the gentleman from New York is not opposed to any good approach, to this problem of working out some kind of program that will help our blind people.

I want to say further that the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Baring, has been very kind with me, and has discussed with me at length the provisions of his bill, H.R. 14. I know of his interest and his sincerity in the problems of the blind. I want to emphasize very emphatically our cordial relationship.

However, I did write to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Baring, when he asked me if I could support his bill, and suggested two particular problems in his approach that caused me grave concern, and made it impossible for me to support his bill.

In the first place, it suggests an approach that I believe establishes a precedent, a precedent that I do not think is a very good precedent. I may be wrong, but to me when you say in the measure, as suggested by the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Baring, and again I want to emphasize his sincerity, it seems to me that when you say that any group of our citizens, no matter how fine they are, shall have a legal right to be consulted by a department of the Government on a basis that I believe H.R. 14 indicates, that it is establishing a dangerous precedent.

In other words, it might be that an organization such as our fine people who are troubled with problems of lameness might demand a similar right for consultation. It might mean that our veterans who are obtaining veteran pensions might demand a similar right to have consultation with the Veterans' Administration.

I just frankly think that is an approach that establishes a precedent that I do not think is a good precedent.

The second problem in the approach that is suggested by the distinguished gentleman from Nevada that worries me is what are the organizations going to be that will have the right to demand this consultation. As I sense H.R. 14, it opens up a Pandora of possibilities. I have no doubt but that the gentlemen who are interested in this legislation are just as sincere and honorable as they can be. But I wonder how the field will open up to any group of ladies and gentlemen who might call themselves an organization for the blind who might demand a consultation.

Mr. Wainwright, those are the two objections that I have found to that approach, speaking just as frankly and honestly as I can. I would like, if the chairman would want it to go into the record, to submit this diagnosis of H.R. 14, or similar legislation, compiled by Mr. Howard E. Jensen, who, as I understand, is a sociologist at Duke University.

Would the chairman like to have that analysis at this time? I do not know that there would be any objection to putting it into the record.

Mr. Chairman, I will have to withdraw that. This may come out later on in the hearings. This is a copy of a letter to the Honorable Graham Barden, and I do not believe I ought to insert this into the record. But if Mr. Barden at a later date would like to, I think that should be his privilege. So may I withdraw that request? Mr. ELLIOTT. Very well.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Wainwright, I will be glad to answer other questions about the legislation, if you would like me to.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Mr. Matthews, groping around, and you fill the bill as an expert, do you know, roughly, how many organizations there are that have been pushing for the Baring bill?

Mr. MATTHEWS. May I at the outset, Mr. Wainwright, say to my dear friend that I appreciate his confidence in my knowledge, but I am not an expert. I know that we have sincere folks who are for both of these approaches and who will argue very eloquently and with, probably, a lot more knowledge, than I do.

In direct answer to your question, No, sir, I do not know exactly, but I would estimate there are literally dozens and dozens of them. I know in my own State of Florida we have 5 or 6, certainly 5 or 6, different organizations who are working for the blind and with the blind.

I imagine in every State we have a large number of organizations. As the gentleman from Nevada explained, I imagine in my State of Florida the work for the blind is carried on in about the same way. We have a Florida Council for the Blind which is responsible to the State legislature. Anyone who does not like the way that council operates can go and see his representative in the legislature. He has recourse to any action he does not like.

That Florida Council for the Blind gets, of course, certain appropriations from the Federal Government. They have guidelines they have to use to spend that money. The agency is a creature, then, of the State legislature, responsible to the taxpayers of Florida on the State level, and, through the various Federal departments on the national level, responsible to the taxpayers of all the country.

Then, of course, in Florida you have the Lions' organizations and their work for the blind, and you have the veterans' organizations and their work for the blind. You have, I know, several different organizations that work for the blind and are for my bill.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. There has only been one organization, to the best of my knowledge, that has been pushing for the Baring bill. But there are various groups that do not seem to have communication with one another who seem to have been pushing for your bill.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Wainwright, I appreciate your emphasizing what I sincerely believe is a rather broad approach to this problem that is suggested in the type of bill that the gentleman from New York has introduced, that I have introduced, and which many others have. I am not positive that all the professional organizations for the blind are 100 percent satisfied with the approach that we have suggested in H.R. 1855, but I do believe that most organizations and many different people who have worked with the blind feel that the best way to approach a study of the problem is through this temporary advisory commission as proposed in my bill, because it does have what we might call a broad, overall objective, and it can look into many problems, per

haps, that ought to be looked into, and that are contemplated in the other bills pertaining to the blind.

Perhaps I am saying that because I cannot speak objectively, and I have too much pride of authorship, but I do believe that the approach that is suggested in H.R. 1855 is broad enough so that we can study the whole area of our program for the blind citizens of America.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mr. Daniels?

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I arrived a little late and I did not get the full significance of the statement of the Congressman. Would you temporarily pass me over?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews. As usual, you have brought the committee a very ably prepared and ably delivered statement. We are grateful to you.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, I have just one final statement. Thank you so much, sir. I want to say again that I am not against anybody. I am not against any blind citizen in America, and there is no Congressman here who is going to be against any blind citizen of America. I know that the chairman realizes that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Wainwright, and I, and others, as we approach these problems, we are doing it earnestly on the problem of what is best for the blind citizens of America.

Thank you very much.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you, Mr. Matthews.

At this point, without objection, I would like to make a part of the record the statement of the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Charles E. Bennett. Mr. Bennett testifies in favor of his own bill, H.R. 2727, which is identical with H.R. 1855, on which Mr. Matthews has just testified.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION, HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity of appearing before you today to testify in favor of my bill, H.R. 2727, proposing establishment of a temporary National Advisory Committee for the Blind. This bill is identical with H.R. 1855, introduced by our able and beloved colleague, Hon. D. R. (Billy) Matthews, and I am following his leadership on this proposal. Congressman Matthews has a long record of service to the blind, antedating by many years his coming to Congress. He has served as chairman of the Florida Council for the Blind and in other capacities in this field of service. I am happy to assist him in the sponsorship of this measure, which I believe will be a means of improving services to our Nation's blind. Mr. ELLIOTT. The committee is happy to have with it this morning a member of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. John H. Dent.

Mr. Dent, we are happy to have you and will hear any testimony that you care to give the committee at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. DENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Elliott.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for allowing me to come in for a few minutes.

I am interested in H.R. 2993, as well as being interested in the rest of the legislation that you have in your subcommittee that may be beneficial to the blind.

I have had a great number of years of interest in the matter of the welfare of the blind, going back to my early youth when we had a personal tragedy in our own family, when my eldest brother became blind at the age of 16 through an operation that he had to have performed and, of course, we lived with it in our own home and learned some of the inside problems that the blind have that are not always known to those who have never come into direct contact with it.

Later on, as I grew into young manhood, and became a member of the legislative body of the State of Pennsylvania for some twenty-odd years, I sponsored and supported legislation aimed at alleviating the situation that the blind find themselves in.

It has been said by wiser men than me that there is no greater affliction than the loss of sight, except probably the loss of the mind, and that there is not much that can be done about it. These people have to live in a world that is more or less shut out, and they have to rely a great deal on friendly relations with those whom they cannot see. The idea of this bill is to give the blind the right of self-expression, the right of belonging to an organization other than the organizations that have been set up in the various States under various names, such as we have in Pennsylvania, the Council for the Blind.

The idea behind it, of course, is that most of the State organizations, of a necessity, are under the influence of the administrative bodies that create them and, therefore, their programs cannot always speak in a method and for the purpose that would give the greatest amount of benefit to the blind people of that State. Therefore, they are seeking the right to belong to an organization independent of State and Federal control or local control, with the idea in mind that they do not want to be pressured into not belonging to the organization, and to refrain from belonging to such an organization, and to make it recogizable on the part of all State and Federal agencies that these organizations have a right to be consulted by the State agencies in developing programs for the benefit of the blind.

I think we have come a long, long way, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, from the days when public servants thought that their only duty to the blind was to give them a permit or a license to beg. We have outgrown that now, and recognize our moral duties as well as our legislative duties to this great group of citizens.

I am sure that the blind themselves have never been overbearing or demanding in their request for decent alleviating legislation. I sincerely hope that the committee will study this two-page bill. There is not too much language in it. It really gives to the blind the same rights that we give to all others in the Nation.

For some reason or another, they have been selected as a group not permitted to do certain things, not exactly by any restrictive law, but by the action of the existing agencies of Government. We do not