ment comes in and says to a State in this busing business: You have got to deprive the children in this school district of the equal protection of the laws by treating two groups in different manners, although the two groups are similarly situated. You must say to one group, you can attend your neighborhood schools. You must say to the other group, you cannot attend your neighborhood schools; and there is the Federal Government saying to the school board, you must violate the equal protection clause by treating these two groups of children differently.

Then they say further, the reason that you are required to treat these two groups of children differently is because you must take one group and bus it to schools elsewhere, either to increase the number of children of that race in those neighborhood's schools, or to increase the number of children of that race in schools elsewhere. And with oceans of sophistry, you cannot wipe out the plain fact that that is denying the children who are bused of their right to attend that school on the basis of race and that is a violation of the decision in the Brown

case.

Mr. MORGAN. Nor can I erase that, following the Civil War, the War between the States, blacks were brought back into the same sort of a system from which they had left previously, and were deprived of their right to education, and deprived of the right of equal opportunity for employment, and deprived of a right for schools. And now we have Federal court orders to remedy the past wrong. When a Federal court issues an order to remedy a past wrong, then it seems to me the Federal court has the right to rectify whatever existed with respect to discrimination against a class of children.

Senator ERVIN. Would you right the wrongs this way, by depriving the right of liberty to little children who were not responsible for slavery and were not responsible for the right and wrong? You should, in your statement, support my bill, because my bill treats black children and white children and brown children and yellow children exactly alike. It says to each one of them-their parents can select the school that they are to attend. That puts them all in the same place exactly.

Mr. MORGAN. Your bill rejects the history under which we both grew up.

Senator ERVIN. If I have to reject freedom in order to stick to history, I will choose freedom.

Mr. MORGAN. I will choose freedom, also. I just want to mention to you, they are not exactly incompatible, and we ought to find a way to get everybody in the country together. Thank you very much.

Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. I will say I agreed with you on many things on the Bill of Rights, but it just grieves me, and makes me wish to weep, for the great organization that stood for freedom of the individual, like the Civil Liberties Union, to come out and justify robbing all children, black and white, of their freedom. Mr. MORGAN. Senator, at least, we agree on the first eight.

Senator ERVIN. The record will be held open for 10 days to receive any further statements that anybody may wish to insert. The subcommittee stands in recess.

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.]

L

APPENDIX

STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. HOWARD H. BAKER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this opportunity to present my views as the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights continues its consideration of the question of the judicially-ordered busing of school children.

As a sponsor of several legislative proposals designed to relieve the hardships imposed by massive crosstown busing, I join my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Brock, the Chairman and ranking minority member of this Subcommittee, and many other members of the Senate in urging prompt action on this issue. Although a number of pieces of legislation have been introduced in an attempt to bring about an equitable solution to this judicially-contrived situation, the critically important matter has not been dealt with conclusively.

To date, the legislative processs has produced no lasting remedy. Courtordered busing continues in my home State of Tennessee in the cities of Nashville and Memphis and in other cities throughout the land.

I will continue to actively support legislation which I hope will prove effective in dealing with this problem. It seems very likely, however, that a long-term solution can best be achieved through a constitutional amendment.

There have been some attempts in the past to dismiss busing as a racial or regional issue, perennially put forth for its election-year appeal. Black and white parents and children from throughout the country who have personally experienced the continuing family disruption brought about by massive busing rightly dispute that claim.

A September, 1973, Gallup poll reported that although a majority of our citizens favor desegregated public school systems, only 5 percent support the use of busing.

This survey, taken at the beginning of the current school year, indicates that "much of the opposition to busing stems from reasons other than racial animosity. These include the belief that busing is an infringement of personal liberties, worry about busing children to schools in different neighborhoods, and concern that busing will increase local school taxes."

The National Congress of Parents and Teachers has expressed strong opposition to busing, and PTA organizations across the country have registered their support for proposed legislative solutions to the problem.

Delegates to the last PTA national convention adopted a resolution pledging that the organization would "reaffirm its strong commitment to integrated quality education for all children and *** oppose the reassignment of students solely to achieve racial balance."

By now, it should be abundantly clear that to be against busing is not to be against providing a quality education for every child, black and white. To be against busing is to place a common-sense concern for orderly education above the caprice of transportation orders.

Legislation prohibiting the assignment of a child to a certain school because of his race is in keeping with the spirit of our historic advances in the progress of the civil rights struggle.

We must not turn our backs on our national commitment to a plural society and to desegregated public school systems. Rather, we must open our eyes to evaluate the effects of busing on children, their families, and their communities. For thousands of Tennessee families, the problem of busing is not a hypothetical one. It is not something to be viewed on the news broadcasts or read about in the newspapers and then forgotten. It is, regrettably, a fact of life.

(233)

I can testify first-hand that many citizens of Nashville and Memphis who are dedicated to the purposes of civil rights strongly oppose massive busing. Some of the members of the community who spoke out most eloquently and forcefully against the evils of forced segregation are equally outspoken against the evils of forced busing.

In cities which have experienced court-ordered busing, there is now a general agreement that enormous hardships have been worked on the children involved, on their parents, and on the financial resources of the community-in that order of importance.

The dislocations of crosstown busing are especially grave because the burden falls hardest on the children themselves. They are the ones who are uprooted from their neighborhoods, forced to get up before daylight, and wait on street corners for buses to carry them past their neighborhood schools to unfamiliar destinations.

For local communities, busing orders have often meant that funds which could be used to make needed improvements in educational facilities or to provide better pay for teachers are instead spent to buy, fuel, and maintain buses. I believe that the current energy crisis and the resultant shortage of gasoline and increase in fuel prices makes unnecessary busing even more indefensible. The theoretical benefits of busing are being increasingly questioned now that busing plans have been translated into reality. The hardships, frustrations, and dislocations are undeniable.

Because of the actual experience of Tennesseans and other citizens in localities which have had to deal with the problem of busing, I believe it is imperative that the proposed solutions receive the priority which they deserve.

I remain convinced that our national goals of providing a good education for every child and assuring equal educational opportunities for all are not furthered by the judicial mischief of busing.

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. DEWEY F. BARTLETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee to present my views concerning forced busing.

However, it disturbs me that these hearings are even necessary. Last April 10, I appeared before another judiciary subcommittee expressing these same views. Yet almost a year has passed and our Nation's metropolitan areas continue to have forced cross-town busing. A recent Gallup poll showed that only 5% of the American people support forced busing as a means to achieve integration in our public schools.

Only 5% of our people support forced busing yet Congress has refused to change our law.

This same Gallup poll showed that only 5% of our people oppose integration. Likewise, let me make it perfectly clear that I too am in favor of integration and believe that the Federal Government has a positive duty to help achieve this goal. But I do not believe that forced busing is an acceptable method to reach that end.

The issue of forced busing became a matter of great concern to many citizens of Oklahoma in the fall of 1969. At that time the first flood of forced busing opposition came to a head in Oklahoma City. As Governor of Oklahoma, I was expected to take a public position. I did not want to be wrong. As I stated, I morally believe in integration. The question was whether forced busing was a proper vehicle to achieve integration.

After much study, it became obvious to me that forced busing was an unjust, unworkable experiment, and not in the best interest of integration, education, or of people, generally. At that time, I issued a detailed statement which said in part:

"Busing, however, requires the school board and/or superintendent to discriminate against some students (of each race) attempting to eliminate the results of long-time discrimination. Discrimination to eliminate discrimination is indefensible and is a cure as sick as the disease itself."

Time has vindicated that conclusion.

Forced busing has created a state of social and educational chaos in Oklahoma's two largest cities, Tulsa and Oklahoma City. It is one issue on which there is little division. The vast majority of people, including Oklahomans, are opposed to busing and cannot understand why it has not been stopped.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the studies which have been made in the forced busing experiment. David J. Armor, associate professor of sociology at Harvard, in an in-depth study of busing, concluded that "busing does not lead to significant, measurable gains in student achievement or interracial harmony. The available evidence thus indicates that busing is not an effective policy instrument for raising the achievement of black students or for increasing interracial harmony." And he continues: "The available evidence on busing then leads to two possible policy conclusions. One is that massive busing for purposes of improving student achievement and racial harmony is not effective and should not be adopted at this time. The other is that voluntary integration programs . . should be continued and positively encouraged by substantial federal and state grants."

I have discussed forced busing with the superintendents of my State's two largest school systems. Both of these men are sensitive, intelligent human beings who desire excellence in education for blacks and whites. Both of these men have been in the trenches on busing. They have had to formulate and implement busing plans. And both are of the opinion that forced busing has failed.

Tulsa has implemented both voluntary and forced busing plans. The voluntary plan achieved success and public support. The forced plan has met widespread opposition and lack of acceptance from both blacks and whites. Since Tulsa implemented forced busing they have experienced a 37% decrease in school enrollment while the suburbs have increased by 11%.

Dr. Bill Lillard, superintendent of the Oklahoma City system stated that "public support for schools has been weakened and polarization has increased as a result of busing."

With the onset of the energy crisis the mass forced crosstown busing of school children has become more ludicrous. According to Dr. Lillard, the Oklahoma City schools will use an additional 350,460 gallons of gasoline this year due to forced busing. Yet even with those facts Congress refused to act.

Which brings me to why I am here. I have introduced S. J. Res. 47, a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the forced assignment of a child to a school on account of his color. The amendment is as follows: "No public school student shall be assigned, transferred, or otherwise compelled to attend any school on account of his race, color, creed, or national origin."

I know the committee is considering both constitutional amendments and legislation to prohibit forced busing. I support eliminating forced busing by both legislation and constitutional amendment. The former is more expeditious and easier to achieve, the latter is more sure.

The people are frustrated that government is not responsive to their will. A 1971 Gallop poll showed 77% national opposition to forced busing-with blacks split almost evenly.

This is one of several areas of legislative prerogative invaded and confiscated by the Supreme Court. Now is the time for Congress to exert its constitutional responsibilities to represent the people.

The amendment I have proposed will work. I suggest, gentlemen, this is why we are here: To represent the people. And the people do not want forced busing. Let us not let another year go by without listening to the people.

I appreciate the invitation to appear before this committee, and I will be happy to furnish any additional information.

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. ROBERT P. GRIFFIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present my views with respect to the several bills referred to this Committee (S. 179, S. 287, S. 619 and S. 1737) which seek to legislate an end to forced busing. As you know, I am the principal sponsor of S. 179, which is similar to a bill I first introduced during the 92nd Congress.

At the outset, I wish to associate myself generally with remarks made by the Chairman at the opening of these hearings. In particular, I share the Chairman's hope that the testimony taken during the course of these hearings will help the Congress to understand more clearly the urgent need for legislation which will truly insure "equal protection of the law" for America's school children.

I am not wedded only to the particular language of my own bill. I see some merit in each of the other measures that the Committee has under consideration.