Lorimer, to whose testimony I have already referred. Those charts may be found on pages 23, 27, 30, and 31 of the first volume of our hearings. I would be very glad to call attention to those charts, and I will ask you to look at them.

(Charts referred to were made part of the record and appear on pp. 213 to 216.)

This chart, figure G [indicating], for instance, shows the index of net reproduction by counties in 1930. You can see very easily where the heavy reproduction rate is. It was brought out that in a great many areas in the Southeast, and even out in the section of the chairman of this committee, that the reproduction rate would run as high as 130 percent, whereas in a great many other sections of the United States it was as low as 80 percent. The natural result is a continuing shifting of population from that heavily overpopulated part to this other part of the United States [indicating]. The result is just as the gentleman from Rhode Island to whom I referred, Mr. Leet, said: We are put to the expense in these poorer overpopulated States of raising the children and educating them, in order that they may go out into these other sections and produce, for sections other than those in which they have been raised.

All of these charts relate to the same thing. Chart I [indicating] shows the school children, and you see the same areas in black. Over here on chart J is the cost of education expenditure per pupil in relation to the reproduction index. Naturally the Southeastern States will show up the lowest, for the same reason. It is due to the comparatively low economic opportunity as compared to the high rate of reproduction.

And the same thing is true of chart E [indicating]. I thought this, perhaps, was the most graphic map of all, showing the expected increase in farm population if there were no migration, just as it would be if you could assume that migration would stop entirely. This is what would be expected here [indicating]. That is the way the map would look in 1960. You can see the lines sweeping through this same southeastern area, coming up and going to the Canadian border, with two of the great Plains States there [indicating].

There was a statement by Mr. Myron Falk, executive secretary, Louisiana Council of Migratory Labor, and assistant secretary, bureau of public welfare, Baton Rouge, in the Montgomery hearings that I would like to read:

I believe that the South is not financially able to meet the problem, because it does not have the money. In the State of Mississippi, the entire State budget is smaller than the budget for the education in the State of Massachusetts, and if the State of Mississippi spent as much on education as New York State, it would take 99 percent of the State budget. Something has to be done to help a State that is trying to supply the entire governmental functions with less money than another State is spending for educational purposes alone. A system of variable grants is the only answer, not only for general assistance, but for all of the categories.

Just one or two other brief statements, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to read. This statement was made by Mr. Curtis, who is a member of our committee. At Lincoln, Nebr., his home State, in the hearings, he said this:

Out of these 4,000,000 people on the road, at least a million of them destitute, we have 2 to 3 million children-not one-third of them obtaining anything like