Dr. REEVES. I can only answer part of your question, because I only have facts on part of it. I shall answer the part that I do know, and, in doing so, I want to point out one thing that I think has been a little confusing to members of the committee, and I can understand well why that is true. That is because of the dual capacity in which I am appearing before this committee. As far as the American Federation of Labor is concerned, this is its bill.

Senator DONNELL. Yes.

Dr. REEVES. Our commission worked many months-

Senator DONNELL (interposing). And by your commission, you mean whom?

Dr. REEVES. Our commission of the American Federation of Teachers, which worked many months on this matter.

Senator SMITH. Is that part of the American Federation of Labor? Dr. REEVES. The American Federation of Teachers is one of the unions affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and our commission was appointed by the American Federation of Teachers. Our commission was asked to study this whole problem and recommend what we considered the best and most comprehensive plan for Federal aid to education and aid to youth. We did that. We arrived at what we thought was the best plan.

We advised the American Federation of Labor as we went along, with reference to that matter. I did not know, Senator, and I am sure a majority of the members of our commission did not know, until after this bill was introduced and was in print, that the provision that is included in title II was included in the bill and with which, as I stated the other day, we were not in agreement. We did not know that until the bill had been introduced and was in print. Senator DONNELL. You mean the provision apportioning it on the basis of population?

Dr. REEVES. No; that nonpublic schools might have a part of that 25 percent. After the bill was in print, our commission considered that matter.

Senator DONNELL. You are speaking of title III now?

Dr. REEVES. No; title II.

Our commission considered that matter after the bill was in print, and the majority of the members of our commission did not agree with that provision. We considered all of the provisions of this bill. There is one other provision in here that came to us as a surprise, and that was the provision with reference to the trusteeship. We considered that very carefully after the bill was printed.

Senator DONNELL. Who prepared that trusteeship provision, if you know, Dr. Reeves?

Dr. REEVES. I do not know who prepared that.

Senator DONNELL. It was not prepared, however, under the auspices of the American Federation of Teachers, was it?

Dr. REEVES. No; it was not. I had no part in that and did not know that the provision was in the bill until after it was printed. However, here was the bill introduced. We considered it at great length, and it seemed to us that the provision of title III, with reference to the question you are raising, was a good one. The fact of the matter is that the provision with reference to the amount of funds distributed in title II and the general way in which those

funds will be distributed to the States, the amount of funds distributed in title III, and the way in which they will be distributed to the States, and the same thing for title IV, are in complete accord with the recommendations of our commission, and I am sure that our commission did have considerable influence with reference to that point. I feel, as I said a moment ago, that we can defend those provisions.

I want to make one more statement about the trusteeship so you will not misunderstand that. With the revision that we propose to title II, then, of course, there would be no need for a trustee with reference to title II.

Senator DONNELL. None of the funds will be going to nonpublic institutions; is that correct?

Dr. REEVES. That is correct, and when I get to title IV, I am going to suggest there is no need for trusteeship with reference to title IV.

With reference to title III, it seemed to our commission that it is a matter of major importance that the services in title III, as we have suggested the revision of section 301, be available to all children in public and nonpublic schools in all the States wherever the need is. The trusteeship provides a means of doing it. We have been able to devise no means that seem to us as satisfactory as a trusteeship. Therefore, we are for that unless this committee can find some better way to do it.

Senator SMITH. May I get that clear in my own mind. I understood the trusteeship had relation only to the distribution of funds to private schools.

Dr. REEVES. That is correct; it applies only to private schools and only in those States where this cannot be done without that technique. Senator SMITH. I do not see where the trusteeship comes in under the theory of title III which is a provision for the distribution according to population. That has nothing to do with private schools. If that should be thrown out of the bill, you would not need the trusteeship at all in title III, would you?

Dr. REEVES. As it is now worded, yes, you do, because the funds are distributed for these purposes.

Senator SMITH. You mean direct to the school and not through the State agency?

Dr. REEVES. That is correct, in those States that cannot distribute the funds to nonpublic schools.

Senator SMITH. I understand there is going to be a Federal bureau that is going to determine the needs of the schools all over the United States. Who will say this State needs it and that State does not? Take my school board, for instance. Will the school board or the State determine whether they need it for needy children? Are we going to bypass the school boards on this thing?

Dr. REEVES. The bill as now written, if I interpret it correctly, in community X, you do bypass the public school board in providing the funds for services for children of nonpublic schools.

Senator SMITH. How about the public school?

Dr. REEVES. In no State do you bypass the school board for children who are in public schools.

Senator SMITII. Then, unless you have nonpublic schools, the trusteeship is not needed. The trusteeship is merely a bypassing procedure?

Dr. REEVES. That is quite right, and in the case where you do have nonpublic schools, in many States, for these purposes you do not need a trusteeship, either, and the State determines that matter.

Senator AIKEN. Dr. Reeves, title III relates primarily to the health of the children, does it not?

Dr. REEVES. Health and welfare, Senator.

Senator AIKEN. No one can disagree with the assertion that the health of one child is as important to the country as another, even though he happens to be of a different religious faith and attends a private school. The health of all children is important to the country. Do you think that the health provisions can best be handled by the education departments? I agree with you that the health of these children is important whether they are Catholic, Jewish, or Protestant or whatever they are. It is of vital importance to the country, and as you look over the list of war heroes you will find a good many of them probably came from parochial schools, and if you will look over the lists that were rejected because they could not pass physical qualifications, you will find that about the same percentage went to private schools as to public schools, but what I am wondering is this: Can this condition best be handled through the Department of Education?

Senator DONNELL. Before Dr. Reeves answers that question, may add this?

I

Senator AIKEN. The reason for that, Senator Donnell, is that 1 think the States may have other agencies that would not have the same restrictions over the use of Federal funds that the educational departments have.

Senator DONNELL. I was going to add one other phase to your question. Title III, as I read it, is not by any means limited to health and welfare. It says:

to promote the health, welfare, and safety of school children by providing for current expenditures for educational facilities and services, such as transportation for educational purposes, library facilities, textbooks—

and under Dr. Reeves' suggested amendment

nonsectarian textbooks, and other reading materials, visual aids, and other instructional materials, school health programs and facilities, and other necessary educational projects.

The point I want to make before Dr. Reeves answers the question, so that we may all be thinking about the same thing, is that I want him to answer the question, if he will, as to the entire title III, whether he thinks it can be best handled by entirely bypassing the local school boards or whether it should go through the local school boards?

Senator AIKEN. Before he answers that question, I would like to say that if title III is properly worded then I would be in sympathy with the full objective of it, because there are so many children who cannot attend public schools, perhaps by reason of location where people have children who live so far from school they have to teach them in their own homes, and even in some of our Eastern States we do that, but the question arises as to how this can best be done. Of course, I would prefer to see the State do it themselves, but so many States do not do it themselves, and those children become penalized. I would rather see the Federal Government do it than not see it done at all. That, however, raises the question in my mind whether some of these functions under title III could not be best performed perhaps under some

other agency of the State where there is no restriction against the use of Federal funds. Probably Dr. Reeves had better answer your question first.

Senator DONNELL. I think we have given Dr. Reeves a pretty heavy question here, for we have delivered two speeches.

Dr. REEVES. Before I try to answer these two questions which are related, may I read again our suggested revision of section 301:

To promote the health, welfare, and safety of school children by providing for current expenditures for services to children such as transportation to and from school, nonsectarian textbooks and current reading materials, school lunches, and health examinations and services, including measures for the prevention of physical defects, there is hereby authorized

and so forth.

Senator DONNELL. You still left in the textbooks except that you have limited them to nonsectarian, and you have included current reading material.

Dr. REEVES. That is correct.

To try to answer the questions asked: clearly, in making provision for the health of school children, some of the activities related to that can best be carried on under the direction of the schools and some of the activities can best be carried on under the direction of some other health service not in the school. For example, health examinations come in the category of activities that I think and our commission thinks will be handled best under the direction of the school. The question has been raised with reference to school nurses. In some places they are under the direction of schools and in other places they are not under the direction of schools. My own opinion is that it is better when they are under the direction of the schools. The service is in the same category as school lunches. There is a bill now before the Congress in which the Department of Agriculture administers the program relating to the distribution or purchase of the food, but the United States Office of Education is provided with funds for the administration of the very important educational aspects of the program. The same point can be made with reference to the health of school children. There are important educational aspects to the health program that is carried on in our better schools. Certainly there is a need for aid to the schools to carry on their part of the health program just as there is a need for aid to the schools to carry on their part of the lunch program. The school's part is the administration and operation of the program, not the purchase of the food but the operation of the program, in order that the program may carry with it educational values that come through its proper operation.

I do not think I have succeeded in answering both the questions that were asked, and, possibly, I have failed to answer your question, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question there? Senator DONNELL. Yes, sir .

Senator SMITH. I have been connected for some time with the national child health program, and I am wondering if we would not clarify our thinking if we took out of this bill all of the provisions which relate to race, creed, and color or anything else, dispose of those questions by taking them out of this bill and having a separate bill on the health and safety and having it purely educational, but leaving it to the school, as you suggest, to carry on the health examinations?

Dr. REEVES. May I ask if you would also include the functions under title IV in separate legislation, the aid to students, aid to youth, so they can go to school? Is it your suggestion that both title III and title IV be provided in some other way?

Senator SMITH. I was not thinking in terms of title IV because it was not so much a question of youth needing education, but the thing I am talking about is health and safety of children which is very much the function of the child health program in which I have been so very interested for many years.

Dr. REEVES. Frankly, Senator, I do not care whether these provsions are made through the passage of one bill or two bills or three bills. The thing that does seem to me important is not only that Congress provide aid to support schools in their operation and maintenance on the basis of need but also that it do these other things which are necessary in order that children and youth may receive the benefits from the schools that are provided.

I have no reason to fear that this could not be done as well under separate legislation as in the same bill. I see no reason why all of these provisions do not rightfully belong in the same bill, because in one case you are providing schools for the children, and in the other case, you are making it possible for the children and youth to receive the benefits from the schools that are provided. As I shall point out later, something like one-half of the youth in a certain age group are not going to receive the benefits of schools even though schools are provided, unless these services to children and youth, including aid to youth, are provided also.

Senator SMITH. My suggestion, I think, would probably meet what Senator Aiken had in mind in his question with regard to the health program.

Dr. REEVES. If you wanted to make a separate bill of that, I see no objection, on the condition that those funds may be utilized in part, at least, under educational direction. I think that is very important.

Senator SMITH. It looks to me as though that would be a logical means by which the health of the children in the schools would be taken care of, but if we were not considering the nonpublic schools at the moment, you would have to deal with that in another way.

Dr. REEVES. I do not know of a single State-there may be some but I do not know of a State-where either constitutional or legislative provision prevents the distribution of these funds to private schools or through private schools to the children.

Senator SMITH. For health purposes.

Dr. REEVES. For health purposes. I know of no case of that kind, but even though such a case should exist I doubt that it would make any difference what State agency is made responsible for the distribution of the funds. I cannot see how that would affect the problem of the constitutionality of using the funds.

Senator AIKEN. I see in this bill a good many very worthy provisions and worthy objectives. Otherwise, I would not have agreed to be one of the introducers to put it before this committee, but then we come down to a matter of practical politics, such as was suggested in a question by Senator Donnell a short time ago, and that means working out the proposed legislation in such a way that it will pass the Congress because a bill is no good and can do no good until it passes, and as far as I am concerned if it were necessary to divide the bill