others, where the county and the State appropriate money, where they both appropriate money, it is becoming an increasing problem. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KOUNS. That is one reason that we think that if through childwelfare services we can cut down on some of those future cases, and through some program to rehabilitate people when they become disabled, eventually we will cut down on that load and still not let anybody starve to death or suffer.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, your general view is that oldage and survivors insurance coverage should be extended as far as it can be practically done at least?

Mr. KOUNS. Coverage and payments.

The CHAIRMAN. Coverage and payments.

Mr. KOUNS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your very valuable contribution to the hearing.

Senator KERR. I would like for him to tell us, if he knows, the average per capita income of the people in his State.

Mr. KOUNS. I have it down at the hotel, Senator, but I don't have it here.

The CHAIRMAN. We have it.

Senator MILLIKIN. It is $1,362; that is, the 1946 to 1948 per capita income.

Senator JOHNSON. What is it for the Nation?

Senator MILLIKIN. The average is $1,315. We are almost, Senator, in the middle.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kouns.
Mr. KOUNS. Thank you.

Senator MILLIKIN. I think, Senator, I could meet a part of your question by saying that there has been criticism on the ground that by freezing the excise taxes for one purpose you lower the available money for general revenue appropriations. But I should add that every politician who has ever attempted to remedy that situation has been rolled out of office. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. So you do not think the sentiment is overwhelming? Senator MILLIKIN. The votes would indicate that a majority of the people are satisfied with what they have.

Senator JOHNSON. I might add one other thing: There have been numerous attempts by ballot, constitutional ballot, submitted to the people, to decrease the amount of welfare that is given in the State of Colorado; and each time it is overwhelmingly defeated by the voters of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. I have two tables here relating to the rehabilitation of the blind that are pertinent to portions of the hearing already held and will be pertinent, I think, to some of the testimony to be hereafter adduced; I also have two other tables, showing the amounts now received by the several States and Territories for child welfare services; the amounts they would receive under H. R. 6000, and the amounts they would receive if $12,000,000 a year were made available for child welfare services.

These tables are self-explanatory, and I think they may be useful to the committee.

(The tables referred to follow :)

TABLE A.-Number of persons blind at survey who were rehabilitated by State rehabilitation agencies and commissions or other agencies for the blind, by job or occupation at closure, fiscal year ended June 30, 1948

Estimated number of blind persons in the United States, 230,354, quoted from Social Security Bulletin,
March 1945.

Source: Closed Case Reports, Form VR:RS-9.

Prepared by Fiscal and Statistical Analysis Branch, Administrative Standards Division, Jan. 26, 1950.

Amounts now available to States for child-welfare services under title V, pt. 3, Social
Security Act, and amounts available if appropriation is increased to $7,000,000
annually as provided in H. R. 6000

Amounts now available to States for child-welfare services under title V, pt. 3, Social Security Act, and amounts available if appropriation is increased to $12,000,000 annually under H. R. 6000

Taylor, Jr.,

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. William representing the Pennsylvania Federation of the Blind. Mr. Taylor? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may make a statement on this bill or any part of it you wish to discuss.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM TAYLOR, JR., PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION OF THE BLIND

Mr. TAYLOR. We, sir, are particularly interested, of course, in the effect on the pension system. Or at least I am going to chiefly restrict myself to the effect that the enactment of this bill would have on the blind in Pennsylvania and Missouri.

We of the Pennsylvania Federation of the Blind are affiliated with the National Federation of the Blind, and I understand Mr. Archibald of our national organization is on your list for tomorrow, and he will discuss the general program, how it is affected. And I may in a sense be approaching it in a negative way.

The provision for the exemption of income of $50 a month provided by the pending bill, we agree, is a slight improvement. I mean, that is self-evident. We are very much distressed at the fact that the exemption of $50 is virtually at the caprice of the rehabilitation person. Now, that is a very complicated subject, and one which Mr. Archibald will go into, but we are in accord in feeling that some exemption is certainly a step forward.

Heretofore, it has been the adamant policy of the Social Security Administration to enforce in every State their policy of "a dollar earned, a dollar off." And, of course, that has fallen with terrible effect upon the blind person. And to appreciate that, you have to realize the instances where an aged woman had earned maybe $5 or $10 a month knitting and would have her check diminished by that amount. This bill does, of course, give certain alleviation. I am now trespassing on what Mr. Archibald will take up tomorrow; and I will restrict myself to Pennsylvania and Missouri.

Now, I am speaking on behalf of the Pennsylvania Federation of the Blind. That is an organization of blind people in the State of Pennsylvania, and we have 8,500 members. Each person makes a little contribution of one dollar. To make it clear on that point, my status is rather unusual here. Most people seem to be professionally involved in these matters. I myself am a practicing attorney. I am a member of the State council, as we call it, in Pennsylvania, which is, in effect the State commission for the blind. Under our statute there is required to be at least one blind person on that commission.

I want, however, to make it very clear that I am in no wise to be understood as pretending to speak for the commission, the council, in an official capacity, but I have served on that commission for many years, and I have worked in the various legislative contests we have had in Pennsylvania respecting the blind pension for over 15 years, and, being a blind person who actually earns his own living, I feel I have some familiarity with this field, although I am not what you might call a professional person.

Senator MILLIKIN. May I ask you a personal question? Were you blind before you became a lawyer?.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. I lost my sight when I was 7 years old, and I was graduated from the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1935.

If I may be pardoned a personal note, I want to point out why I feel so strongly on this subject of exempt income. I had the good fortune of having a very fine home and very fine parents. My father had a practice before me, and I went into his office. He died, unfortunately, 2 years after I went into the practice. But it was just that factor of being given a start for 2 years which has determined, if I may be pardoned for saying it, my making a fairly good financial success in the practice.

But that is why I feel so strongly, and why I can sympathize with people. Because I can realize that without something to get me across that first bridge, I would find it impossible to conceive that I could have succeeded in the practice of law.