You raise the question whether that is a Federal function or State function, and I can only answer that question in terms of what the Federal Government has been doing throughout the years with reference to functions of that kind. The Federal Government has provided aids of a variety of types, including some of those provided under this title of the bill. So the Federal Government certainly has already committed itself to having some responsibility in this area, and in some cases to having a very large responsibility. It is no longer a question, as I see it, of whether this is a proper function for the Federal Government. I think you gentlemen in the Congress have determined that long, long ago, you have decided again and again that this is a proper function for the Federal Government.

Senator CHAVEZ. Suppose you give us your views as to the responsibility of the Federal Government in this respect.

Mr. REEVES. I believe that the Federal Government does have responsibility to see to it that the services included under section 301 of title III are made available to the children, and that if the States do not make those services available through their own machinery, then I believe the Federal Government has a definite and clear-cut responsibility to see that that is done.

Senator DONNELL. Has the Federal Government established a precedent, Doctor, in connection with the transportation of children to and from schools? Has the Federal Government ever provided money for that purpose; and if so, under what bill?

Mr. REEVES. I can answer that only on the basis of my best judgment, which is this: I am convinced in my own mind that if we went into the matter we would find that transportation has been provided by the Federal Government for educational programs under the NYA, under the CCC, under the WPA, and I suspect under others which I cannot recall.

Senator SMITH. Were not the CCC, NYA, and WPA all emergency matters because of unemployment and that phase of the picture rather than for educational purposes? I think we were justified in making those set-ups for those particular emergency purposes. We are trying to get away from it now, we are trying to get on an educational basis where the Federal Government should participate.

I want clarified how you defend the Federal Government doing something that looks to me obviously to be a State function. If the State does not do this, why should we say we have got to do this? Why should not they be told that this is the kind of thing they have got to do?

If they need aid for equalization of educational opportunity, I see the difference there; but to have these basic things neglected by the State and then we say, "We think you are not taking care of your children adequately, so we will do it for you"-I do not think that is the Government's function.

It seems to me the more we multiply the Government's activities in those different areas the more we are going to have Government control of our education. I have a mass of correspondence from people who say it multiplies the areas in which the Federal Government is becoming more and more active, and we are going to get control of education, philosophy, and everything else by the Federal Government. That is what I am concerned with.

Senator TUNNELL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question right there? Senator WALSH. Certainly.

Senator TUNNELL. Doctor, is there any way that the Federal Government could compel the States to meet their obligations in an educational way if they do not do it, whether it is because they are not able to do it or are not inclined to do it?

Mr. REEVES. I do not know of any way, Senator, whereby that can

be done.

Senator BALL. Right on that point, I think the States which are spending about all they can possibly raise on education and still are not meeting the minimum standards are in one situation. Those States which are comparatively wealthy and that also come under this bill I think are in a very different category. Your responsibility for appropriating funds for education is still, in most States, very close to the people. They have the authority, the power, if they want to do it, to appropriate whatever they think is necessary for schools.

Now, in the States that can afford to raise their standard and do not do it, it seems to me that you are fundamentally weakening your democracy when the Federal Government way up above here steps in and says, "O. K., you have got to do it."

In other words, you have not been able to sell those local people on the idea that increased expenditures for education are a good longterm investment, which I think they are, so the Federal Government decides that it knows better than any local people what is good for them, and does it.

Now, I think that is contrary, in my concept, to how a democracy should work. I think where a State is wealthy enough to meet its own educational problem, the Federal Government has no business butting in. I admit there is a different picture where the State has not been able to do so even after using all of its resources to meet the situation. I would like to have your reaction to that.

Senator CHAVEZ. Dr. Reeves, suppose the State authorities, for reasons of their own, do not appropriate the necessary funds to take care of what you have in mind, does not the Government's responsibility rest upon its interest in the general welfare?

Mr. REEVES. I will try to answer those two questions.

Senator BALL. May I interject right there? We talk about the State as if it were something entirely outside of this Government.

Mr. REEVES. The Federal Government, of course, is also the Government of the same people. The Federal Government has some very definite obligations. This proposal here is a proposal to provide certain services to children. The Federal Government provides the funds because the Federal Government has a vital interest in this matter. We have a right to call upon the Federal Government to see to it that these services to children are provided. We cannot say that this is an obligation of the State and is not an obligation of the Federal Government-at least, I think we cannot say that. I think it is an obligation of the Federal Government just as much as it is an obligation of the State; that is, with reference to title III, which I am talking about. I am not talking about the operation and maintenance of schools, as set forth in title II.

Senator CHAVEZ. Now, in order for this committee to be justified in passing the legislation, there has to be some justification. The Federal Government must have some interest, some justification to carry on.

Isn't that based upon the general welfare of the people of the country? Mr. REEVES. It is based upon the general welfare, and it seems to me that we have had one of the most important demonstrations of the national interest in this matter during this period of the war. The interest of our Nation in the health and welfare of the children and youth of this Nation, it seems to me, has been demonstrated in a way such that I do not see how anyone can question that as a legitimate Federal interest.

Senator TUNNELL. Well, it seems to me if you could fence each State in and keep every child who is educated in a particular State in that State, you might have some ground for saying it is entirely a State responsibility; but a child raised in South Carolina or Texas moves to some place in the North or the West, or some other section, and the State that educated him has no contact with him after his education, in many instances. I am asking if it is not the theory entirely of the national responsibility that those who were raised in a particular State move to other States without any restraint or restriction, and a child educated in one State moves to and lives in another State when it reaches its maturity. So you cannot divide people into States, from an educational standpoint; is that right?

Mr. REEVES. That is correct, and that is a defense both of title II and title III. But it is important, in our opinion, that these services set forth in title III be set forth separately from the title of the bill that provides directly money for the operation and maintenance of the schools. It seems to us that it is of importance that no child who needs the kinds of aid set forth in title III should be prohibited from securing those kinds of aids. The national welfare is at stake in that matter. If in some of the States there are provisions that would make it impossible for those funds to be expended for some or all of the purposes set forth in title III, then the Federal Government must see to it directly that those services which are not a part of the operation and maintenance of the schools as institutions are provided for the children. Now, that is more or less the sum total of the argument there. Senator CHAVEZ. Carry it a little further, if you please. If you provided facilities under title II, would you not be putting aside everything that you did under title II once you did provide facilities under title III?

Mr. REEVES. If you decide that title II is good and it should be passed, and that title III is not needed, there isn't any question but that that would be a gain for the children and the youth of America to some extent, but it would not deal with the whole problem but only with a part of the problem. I think that $100,000,000 for the services set forth in title III is relatively as important as the $300,000,000 set forth in the program under title II.

Senator BALL. Mr. Reeves, I do not think you got to the point of my question, which is: What happens to your democratic process when the people on the local level of the Government refuse to meet the need, even though they are financially able?-I am putting the States that are not financially able in a different category-so the Federal Government steps in over their head and does it. It seems to me you are carrying on that kind of philosophy, substituting the Federal Government for the local government; that is, if the local government refuses to provide adequate police and sanitary facilities, then it is

the obligation of the Federal Government to come in. If we should do that, then pretty soon we would have the Federal Government running all units of government in this manner, and you might as well abolish the county and State governments.

Senator SMITH. If you rely on the proposition that it is the general welfare clause that permits that, then we can do anything we want in the country.

Mr. REEVES. We have just been going through a period when we recognize, in a way, what we did not recognize, may I say, during the period of the depression, the importance of youth to our national welfare and to the safety of this Nation. We certainly are recognizing that today. Now, from the point of view of national safety, of national defense, and of other aspects of national welfare, I think that the functions set forth in title III of this bill are at least as much a Federal responsibility as they are a responsibility of the States. Now some of you undoubtedly do not agree with that point of view.

Senator DONNELL. Do you think it is desirable that the State carry out those functions, such as, for instance, transportation of the children to and from the schools?

Mr. REEVES. I think it is highly desirable that the States carry out that function when they can afford to do it, yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. If the States know that the Federal Government is going to do it if they do not do it, isn't that an encouragement to the States not to perform that function?

Mr. REEVES. I suppose that might be true. But is not the Federa! Government just as much a government of the people as the State governments?

Senator BALL. No; it is not as close to the people. Certainly it is not as close to the people as your local school district, by any means. Senator DONNELL. Don't you regard the operation of the schools primarily a function of the State rather than the Federal Government?

Mr. REEVES. I believe that the operation and the maintenance of schools is a function of the State and should be left in the hands of the State and that the State should pass down the responsibility for that function to the local community.

Senator DONNELL. Are not these purposes under title II immediately subsidiary and ancillary to the general educational functions of the State?

Mr. REEVES. They are related to those functions, and if the services are provided as set forth in title III, then clearly we will have a better educational program going on in our schools.

Senator TUNNELL. Doctor, don't you think that the fundamental right of a child supersedes all these highly technical distinctions between the State and the Nation? The child is entitled to some consideration, no matter what the Nation or the State may think their particular rights and duties are, even if they do not perform them.

Mr. REEVES. I feel so strongly on that that I would want this committee to put the interest of the children first and not the question as to whether under title III the Federal Government should do something to get the States to perform that function better than they are now performing it, or whether the Federal Government should

perform that function itself. I do not think that is a matter of major importance. We have had programs during the depression, and you referred to them as emergency programs. They were emergency programs, that is true, but the Federal Government did step into the picture and provided services of a variety of types in order that the children and youth of the Nation might not suffer. Now, we have had a picture presented in earlier hearings of this committee that makes it perfectly clear that the children are going to suffer, and suffer tremendously, unless these provisions are made for them. It is also clear, I think, to anyone who has the facts before him, that the children in the nonpublic schools will suffer as well as the children in the public schools unless some of these services are provided.

Senator CHAVEZ. And isn't it also true, speaking about suffering, that the National Government itself, the very existence of the Govern ment, would be threatened due to a lack of these services?

I suppose you have seen the records of the selective service. Now, of course, the country was in an emergency, and thousands and millions of boys were turned down-patriotic boys that were willing to do their duty to the last for the Government in order that it shall exist-were turned down, could not do their duty because of lack of educational facilities in their early days.

Mr. REEVES. That is correct.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I have been informed that Senator Hill is not going to be with us tomorrow. If that is correct, there are certain people here who would like to give their testimony while he is here, and I am sure he would like to have them do so. I would be very glad to yield to such persons.

Senator DONNELL. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, will Dr. Reeves be here tomorrow? I would like very much to ask him a number of questions while he is on the stand.

Mr. REEVES. I hope I may be here until I have finished my testimony. I noted that the chairman said in the beginning of this hearing that he preferred to have me provide testimony with reference to the technicalities of the bill and not as to the need. I just want to point out one thing, Mr. Chairman, and that is that title IV of this bill has not been given consideration by this committee; and that, as far as title IV is concerned, I have some material in the nature of evidence that I think should be presented to this committee, and I would like to have that exception made.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one statement here. I would not want to see this discussion turn on interest in children or not interest in children. I yield to no one in my interest in the education of children. I was 10 years directly engaged in educational work. I am only thinking in terms of by what kind of program can we get the best possible education opportunities for the children in this country. Can we accomplish those aims by a decentralized handling of the thing? Can we do it better by putting up to the States who do not seem to be doing enough to do more, and simply give them aid where they need aid, in order to equalize education? I am entirely for the principle of equalization of education, but I am trying to get away from the danger of taking away from the States that responsibility which I think they ought to have.