Conversation 095-001

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

I'll ask the members of the brief to move up to the table three times.

Let me open the meeting and then go directly to the briefing team for...

There are explanations of this substantive legislation.

I summarized it last night, the message which comes to the Congress, which is working on for us, as a matter of fact, the great deal of time on it.

You'll see some of the things I said last night, including the message that I said to the Congress about the self-worth and

I would preface my remarks by saying something that particularly the members of the judiciary and Medicare, I am sure, would stress.

And those of you who have been working on this issue, even those who are not members of the judiciary, will probably agree with me.

That is that all the time I have been in public life, I've never come up with such a difficult issue in terms of finding the right president.

All I can do is just by saying, by stating the position of a student, and I'm sure this is something that many, many of us do.

My position in this category, I think that we're busting for the purpose of providing rated balance to other schools.

I didn't say that's the same institution as the other one.

I have tried in the concept of this office and ministry in every way possible to carry out that view.

There is a problem that the courts

I believe that in moving in this particular area, it is a matter of conviction.

It is not shared by many very concerned people who will face the other view.

I believe that it is the wrong thing to do, and that all of us who care, that is the end of it.

Thank you.

...because if you go back to Brown vs. the Board of Education, many people forget what that education was about.

Really, in the first instance, it was not about segregation.

It was about education.

This was entirely the case.

Brown vs. the Board of Education, you know, that's legally...

Segregated education was inferior education, and the Brown grade was the one that proved that particular point supposedly.

Now the question is whether or not education in this result from busing is superior or inferior education.

That, when that experiment shows, and here allows sociologists to agree on our state of mind, and the condition of the fact that when you bust children, and particularly young children, away from their neighbors and schools, that that results...

more often than not in inferior education.

So the question is if you're going to address one wrong by compounding it with another wrong.

That's how I see it.

Now the question is what do you do about it?

There are a number of ways to get at this.

I would say that a number of the members of the House and the Senate have thrown up their hands

The Constitutional Amendment, too, in terms of seeing whether it is, whether there is a way, it is very complex to have a Constitutional Amendment that will, on the one hand, drop the use of buses for the purpose of achieving racial balance in our communities,

A goal which I very, very strongly support, but at the same time will not, in effect, restore the integrity of the school system.

And that is very helpful to the person who belongs.

That is helpful to the person who belongs because the likelihood for constitutional amendment, of course, must be very limited.

It can't be spelled out.

It can't go into specifics and alternatives and options and so forth, and legislation.

On the other hand, if we had to explore the country, I know that one comes as close to the market as I've seen, and I would urge the members of the Senate and the House to consider that route.

Looking down the road to a situation, if that situation did arise, but the legislative route proves to be ineffective,

or can do them with the problem.

However, having said that, the key point that I emphasize to the leaders today, and the urgency of this meeting, and only Eric Martin will hear about this point, is that assuming that any individual here has a constitutional amendment, that one, and this is to the very majority,

Two that will do the job will be interpretative of this decree according to the way it will do the job.

Assuming that that is the case, you'll get two-thirds of the majority of the House of Representatives in this case.

There is no way the Constitutional Amendment could possibly become effective for probably 18 months.

Some say 12 months.

By 18 months, we might get it.

What does that mean?

It means that...

At school children court duty, years of age from the last school year and possibly the next year, this year could by the hundreds of thousands be the victims of new, nasty customs orders by the courts.

So therefore it is to be told.

I think that this issue, an issue that all of you know from your email, all of you know from watching what is happening around the country, this issue is one that requires action now.

It requires it because you just didn't have a generation of children that are the victims of, if you believe in what is wrong, are the victims of this kind of thing.

Second, it is, I think, the...

Therefore I owe it to those children.

And we go also to the whole act to reuse this issue, an issue that is rapidly becoming more and more important, more and more significant, an act that can only have a detrimental effect on our consideration of other issues.

And that's why I call for a legislative moratorium on any new busking orders by the courts.

It is because the second half of our program would provide for a fruitful educational opportunity as a national commitment.

And that, of course, will take a longer time in terms of congressional consideration.

But if you provide a moratorium on buses, and at the same time provide for people with space and opportunity, I believe that the courts would say, and this is spelled out by the briefers in great detail, would find that the moratorium is going to be

The moratorium has many advantages.

It buys the time that we need to consider this in a rang, calm, objective way, particularly.

It also does something now.

The constitutional amendment does not speak to the problem until later.

Now, I know there are voters who might say, well, if the Congress pursues the constitutional amendment, if it pursues the constitutional amendment, that will have its effect on the court.

It might have exactly the opposite effect, of course.

We've thought that through, too, in my view.

I believe, therefore, that if you want action now, that's the only way to get it.

The way we've presented it, we've thoroughly worked it out, and we believe it's constitutional, and it is that point.

At that point, I strongly urge the Interior Committee to the House and the Senate

At the earliest possible time, consider a moratorium if the Congress enacts it.

Because there's a disagree about what ought to come after that.

But at least it means that in this whole area where we have a hard time with contradictory and chaotic decisions, and many of which go beyond what the Supreme Court requires, here is the place where the Congress must step in.

Paul, the editor, has talked about this list of requirements to do what we do from there on out.

Then we come to the bigger issue, the locker problem.

That has to be programmed, which will now be described as the people education law, the EI, which, in effect, sets up methods whereby we can continue the process of desegregation if the Constitution requires it.

but continue it without stopping being the almost automatic tool to which the courts so often divert their turn.

It is therefore in that particular area that we get a great deal of work and

I will close my remarks by saying that you will find an enormously complex presentation.

You will find that the legislation is not simple, and the reason it is not simple is the problem.

That, if it is to stand, there must be, under consideration by the Congress, in the way, a companion bill that will deal with the problem that the court is concerned about.

The legislative route, we believe, is the preferable route

To stop more busting, because it allows for more options and a more complex approach to what is a complex problem.

On the other hand, I would close my presentation by saying, while I believe that

The moratorium, if you want to do something now, is the only room.

And while the legislative group is a second part of our program, we think it's the preferred group because it allows an approach that is, we think...

The Constitutional Amendment Group is one that I totally understand could be supported by members of the House and the Senate who, looking down the road, could well reach the conclusion that the Legislative Group

and that we have to have action on the property.

I'll just summarize my view in this way.

I can for action stop busting.

I prefer legislation as the method to do it.

If legislation cannot do it, then the constitutional amendment is the way to do it.

The way what we should do now, though, is to first say the first and first, and what is the first thing that I think

All of us should be able to agree on, if we agree with the major premise, of just going right on down this path with more and more bus drivers, and which creates submission and turmoil in this country, I think we ought to go on the moratorium, and there only the Congress can act.

We'll turn to George Shultz first.

This has been an interesting subject for me,

as they come, working on the problems around the South Island.

So I will summarize very briefly, Mr. President, who has asked here and there what the Board has said, and then when the tough questions come, you can ask Dick, Elliot, John, and the lawyers around here.

And just by way of background, I do think, first, in working on this, the committee, the president, consulted a wide variety of people.

We consulted the House, the Senate, and here.

We consulted the women's rights leaders.

We had a lengthy conversation with the black appointees, and the administration, and the Senate, and the House, and the Senate,

We consult with the co-chairmen of the school committees that we set up through staff.

We consult with educators.

We listen and talk to them and try to infer from a one-time section of the population.

The second thing that I would put forward prior to talking about the content of the proposed bill

are the proposed findings, as it seems to me.

One has to look carefully at the findings that underlie the action.

As the President has emphasized, the effort here is to take the emphasis away from the discussion of transportation and put it onto the subject of education and the improvement of education.

It is an anti-clustering effort.

set of bills.

It is a pro-education set of bills and it recognizes the importance of saying to it that we do not have a perpetuation in any way of the dual school system.

That is set forth in the findings.

I think that additionally the proposed findings say that the dual school system as we have traditionally known it

has been originally above the tremendous stride that is in the conference center, and there has been a tremendous amount of reorganization of school systems, consequently a large increase in funding for education.

and that there are substantial costs to that.

There are dollar costs, where the dollars could better be spent on education, direct education purposes.

There are potential health and safety costs, and these are especially important in the case

A younger killer.

It's gray or below.

And I just might read in that connection, I know you're all familiar with it, so it's good to remind ourselves.

A quotation from Juan de Sousa.

An objection to transportation of students may have validity when the time or distance of travel is so great that the risk, either the health of the killer, or the connection we engage in the education process of it.

It hardly is to say that the limits on time of travel will vary with many factors, but probably with none, more than the age of two.

So, this set of findings, I think, has been important to us in designing this program.

Finally, I would...

We have to use a couple words, and then a short sentence.

It must emerge from the case law that has been made on this subject.

It is a picture that is both incomplete and imperfect.

We don't have a codified sense for nationality, which just wasn't.

It's remiss by equal educational opportunity, and so one of the main purposes here is to put forward a national purpose.

I'm committing to the two bills, the two bills you've chosen to set.

The first is the moratorium, because the detail and the meaning and rationale for it, I suppose, are the factors earlier discussed.

I can't help but liken it, in a way, to the wage price freeze.

That's where, in fact, we said let's just hold everything constant for a period of time, while we had that time to put into place something that we hope will deal with this problem on a more equitable basis than where we are now.

So I agree.

The moratorium plan has to move the moratorium.

If you look on your fact sheet, you see that it lasts until July 1, 1973, or until the proposed legislation is passed, whichever is earlier.

The second bill is the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1972.

and that is essentially a brief part of these legislations.

The first part, which Secretary Ripson may want to comment on in more detail, deals with the need for funds for compensatory education, where you have concentrations of low-income students.

And while there has been a fair amount of opposition to the so-called Coleman report and some of the derivative studies from it, which suggest the limitations of especially spending small amounts of money for compensatory purposes,

There are quite a number of studies that show that if you can put into a school system a critical mass, a large enough sum, then you can kind of get over a hump, and you would have a real difference in the quality of education that's available.

And so, it is proposed to do that in schools attended by low-income students.

And this, of course, is

It's not a racial thing, this is an income thing, an effort to improve the quality of those schools, and in doing so, to bring a better measure of equality of educational opportunity.

And that is brought about partly by administrative matters, which H.E.W.

has been making and will continue to make.

How do you phrase the kind of one-size-fits-all better?

and second, to annualize the one billion dollar rate of the emergency school aid act, and to make, to supplement the final one fund, and to raise the amount of money that can go to low-income students in attaining this critical value.

So that is one part, a programmatic part with financial assistance to improve the quality of education, to improve the quality of education.

The second part sets up, on the national base,

Certain definitions, I think, arise of equal educational opportunity, especially stations wide.

ended up as a decision as far as the jury and the fact of segregation may be.

And the denial, if you look on page 2 of your fact sheet under B, you will see that the denial of equal educational opportunity delivers segregation.

Failure to eliminate vestiges with rules of discrimination, that's the fact that it's bad, that it purposefully increases segregation.

and failure to take action to overcome the lack of experience here, particularly when we have this virus in America.

So, there is set up a set of affirmative rights so that the treatment cannot be denied on a national basis.

The third section of the bill has to do with remedies where denial may be found unaccursed.

Here, in part, what the remedies are codified, they are rank orders.

and they are given some extra wealth by virtue of the fact that some of the money in the Emergency School Aid Act would properly be used to support these remedies.

This is, I think, an example of something that Congress can do that the courts can't do.

And so, a set of remedies is set out in the law, and the courts are...

...instructed at where they find a violation of the Constitution to use those remedies in order to take the first remedy or the first set of remedies that will correct the situation.

Now, there are many cases one has to acknowledge.

where the court will go through these remedies and will not be able to satisfy itself that the wrongs found have been right.

And that brings us to the exception of busting, and there is a section on busting.

The suggestion in this one decision that I made differentiates at first according to the age of children, and prohibits increases in bus average amount of bus fare for students of 6th grade or less, so that you can also leave.

A court could not order an increase in the amount of transportation that those students receive as a remedy in the case of the elementary school students.

In the case of junior high and high school students, the...

Strong thrust against busing continues, and the court will have to find clear and convincing evidence that no other remedy is sufficient in order to order outreached busing.

In those cases, the statute provides that such an order should be temporary, and that it should be accompanied by a plan of some sort,

that had the prospect of so rearranging things in the school district, either by, say, building a new school, or building a magnet school, or something of that kind,

such that at some point the amount of bussing order could recede to its original level or certainly become less.

So the notion is that maybe that you can achieve a certain thing over a period of say two or three years that you can't achieve immediately and so the prospect should be there of the bussing order being temporary.

The

This place also contains the...

The idea that if there is a violation in a district, that should mean that that district is forever and ever operating under a court order, that it should be possible to question yourself, and that if there is a violation, and there is an order for desegregation,

If you have a period of five years in which a busting order is put into place, if you have a period of five years in which there is no subsequent violation, then the busting order ends.

And if you have a period of ten years, then the broad court order ends.

So one sees that that is a problem.

which has to be dealt with, and that as time passes, districts move out under a court order and become, in the normal sense, able to conduct their own business in their own way.

It might get bad, and again, stressing the last frontier in the effort to codify and set forward a set of measures to apply across the country that is provided.

But on application of the local education agency, an existing desegregation order may be opened if it goes beyond what is set forth in the statute and may be consistent with the statute.

Well, there are many other things in the legislation, but I think that highlights and gives us anything to do with it.

Well, I think one thing I'd like to emphasize is that I could speak custody to a question that's expected of our current legislation.

In terms of the manner in which both of these pieces of legislation are cast, I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that the Congress has the constitutional power to halt busing for this moratorium period.

I think the warrant for that power comes from Section 5 of the 13th Amendment, but also Article 3 of the Constitution.

Constitutional experts have been consulted, and I believe that in terms of the overall manner of presentation, there just is no question about it.

Most, if not all of them, would even say that without the comprehensive nature of the Congress addressment problem, it could just independently pass a bill declaring a moratorium.

...for the same constitutional reasons.

But when you combine the fact that you have a nationwide and european data presentation, that's obvious to every government, and then a substantive piece of legislation which the congress movement can consider...

As I said at the outset, there's just no doubt at all that the Congress has the power and the Constitution to rake off moratoriums.

Significantly, the moratorium bill and the substantive bill tie into each other, so that there is a declaration of the substantive bill that this Legislature, as proposed by the President,

in that kind of legislation which was suggested in the findings of the North Carolina Daily.

I think you might get political arguments from some lawyers to the contrary, but the considered opinion of constitutional experts and those that have been studying this topic for months, I think there doesn't seem to be any doubt at all in this perspective.

Do you have a brief moment?

Yes, sir.

Yes, I have a brief moment.

Interesting enough, Mr. Speaker, to brief, we should go to two parts.

One, you just have the power without, let's say, consideration of a substantive issue or findings of an actual kind of situation, and say that the Congress has a possibility for a temporary restraining order for a court issue.

But when you find a lack of uniformity or certain variations that exist in the legislative activity of many federal district judges, the overall overriding purpose of bringing about quality education, all who have addressed themselves to this problem that we consider to be responsible to do, there should be no downfall in this respect.

I'd like to say that in this process of consultation, on this point, for the first week, we got a view that we really needed a government-adjusted department.

We didn't limit ourselves to that.

We found an outsider to solve the first part of the case, and practicing law for the trial cases before the court, and then reviewed it, so we tried to get a broad circle of consultation.

For a comprehensive overview of this tour, I just stress one point, and that is that the combination of the resources needed to create the critical mass that this tour is referred to

In order to provide a degree of impact for compensatory education, it can't make a difference.

We need to have the enactment of the emergency school assistance legislation, which is now in Congress.

There would be provided in the equal opportunity legislation

Language that modified the emergency school assistance legislation in just one significant respect, and that is to permit funds to go to a school system where there is a significant degree of economic or racial escalation of insurance.

I couldn't know the school system is not able to take action that would, by transferring those children to another school, bring about the actual defecation.

This is essentially designed to deal with those large city problems where, unless we include such eligibility, we will not be giving those children the same benefit of the best education that would be received in situations already contemplated by that legislation where the segregation process takes place.

is underway.

On the other hand, however, we would preserve the general thrust of the emergency school aid legislation by giving priority to school systems, particularly in funds that the system carries out in segregation measures that have been required in one way or another to do that.

We would also give encouragement to school systems to break down economic and racial isolation

by providing a child who receives something in a school with a concentration of poor or minority children.

Poor is purchased as a $300 payment, or in cases where there is a very high proportion of children up to 400 dollars.

To take with him that money, if he moves to a school where his race is in the minority,

This, in effect, means that the school system may voluntarily take steps to reduce isolation on a basis that creates a positive economic incentive to do that.

It can provide for the continuing compensatory education

of the transferred child without a corresponding loss of funds in the school from which the child was transferred.

So, yes, then...

We continue to need the Alexis Goulet administration as a cornerstone for the provision of these equal opportunity funds.

And we need it in essentially the terms which pass both the House and Senate.

The kind of modification I refer to can be accomplished by and in terms of the Equal Opportunity Act itself, and need not be incorporated in the regulations for the various conferences, for all of the conferees who are agreed as opposed to the...

Settlement society was one point there in Elliott that I think is particularly important for the leaders of this country.

We all tend, when we talk like this, to tend for a degree in the main terms of the city, and that's what cities are all about.

I thought we could add it this way.

It's another debunking problem in a number of ways.

One, I would use it, of course, as a tool for the purpose of desegregating.

Another way to look at it is leaving out the desegregation altogether.

You could say, well, I live as a child.

...growing up in a poor neighborhood with a lousy school.

Shouldn't you have a method for that child's education?

Black, white, fairly apart from segregation, get them out of there, take them to a better school, and so forth, and so forth.

In other words, the purpose of busing fairly apart from the segregation thing is better education, not...

There's no answer to that argument at all.

If you have a, if you say, well, we don't want to have busing because there are other detentions to be sent, if those two have already taken away their nature because they're on the bus too long and so forth and so on, then we're going to have to go in and return this to the hospital.

As long as we then move on to schools where they live, so that they have a useful opportunity, have a good education there, and a good time to say, well, you're stuck there in a bad, inferior school, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

So, what we're really saying here is this.

The funds that we suggest under the bill would have the premise of upgrading the schools, not only in the central cities that are in barrier areas,

but also upgrading rural schools that are inferior, and bringing them up to what is basically the average of the good schools in an area.

And there are a lot of rural schools that also need it.

This is not just a city school upgrading business.

The second thing I would make an aspect is that looking at it in terms of

of the great majority of black children for the moment.

Let's say black children who live in Harlem, or black children who live in Southside Chicago, those are two pretty fair examples.

It takes the most extreme advocate of violence as a solution, not simply of the racial problem, but as a solution of the education problem.

He would admit that if the Congress would appropriate and the state would appropriate songs that he never even dreamed of, that it would probably take maybe 20 years for even the majority of those children eventually to get out of there, out to the better schools and the suburbs and bus and river tools.

What we have to do...

It's recognized that a majority of the children who live in Central City and go to Central City schools

We are going to be going to those schools, and must therefore upgrade the schools where they are.

So consequently, this means very, very specifically at that point, so that it is given to individuals, but it's true.

The student who grows up happens to have the accident or whatever the case might be, a burden being borne in a poor neighborhood, poor school, that our goal is to see that that school will be upgraded.

And so that child will have the same opportunity around the public opportunity for living.

It's funny who happens to have the access growing up from a more suburban area.

You cannot bear it if you have to believe in equity.

Move with a hard moratorium and a hard line on no transportation.

How is that going to affect you?

You are getting it.

without at the same time moving on the line of upgrading the schools where they are.

Otherwise, we're dooming people to inferior education with no tools to deal with it.

That's what we get after very substantially.

Mr. President, let me ask Dick a question, which is probably the last.

It states on page 3, translated as if I might do a couple of specific cases, and then, we'll try about 7, 8, and 5 there again, and then go to position 3B.

I don't think that either of the two Michigan cases, either in Detroit or Grand Rapids, were those school district lines predicated on any segregationist purpose.

There's no doubt historically they were not established on that basis.

I would assume then that this would be an order to the court in those two cases, that the frame they seem to be taking is the wrong one, and that they cannot violate the district law.

Is that correct?

I just want to make a comment on it.

I just wanted to ask one question about the nature of the discussions we've had in this district.

I don't know if that's a specific question.

Hva?

We did not go about this by saying, let's take this case, this case, and this case, and see what we can do about it.

But rather, by saying, how can we produce a national program that has equity in it, that will apply the same flow from one country to another, and to work at it that way.

And then when we have done that, naturally, we believe that people are going to find out

What about this case?

What about that case?

I did want to make that procedural point about the way the committee went about it, because we had very much the idea.

Like, for example, we had a special case in Charlotte, Max Lundberg, without being confused.

Max, I see something that we need to look back on, as a matter of fact.

What we come up with does deal, in most of those cases, in terms of the, well, for example, the nobody has yet, nobody has yet discussed the, what I think is a very important third leg of the three-legged stool, and that is intervention.

The Justice Department is directed to intervene.

In those cases where lower courts are taking positions that go beyond what the law requires, as it goes into the Supreme Court, I might also say that that directive, to the extent that it can be enforced in any administration, and sometimes I have great doubts on this point, that directive...

It not only goes to cabin officers, but it goes to every bureaucrat in every department in this government.

That means all the bureaucrats at ATW and all at the Civil Rights Division of Justice who disagree with the decision I made.

I would point out, I was elected.

They weren't.

And I expect the cabin officers to inform them of that whenever they try to sabotage what I tried to say in this message.

I'd like to comment on that and then address myself to what Mr. Ford raised.

If you look at the last line on the third page, Mr. Ford, you will see the words purpose and effect.

That would require a telling of two things, not one or the other, but two things, by major products of the evidence that the purpose by which the political subdivision of the schools in the county or whatever it might be, was to

and that what they are seeking to do would not be consistent with the legislation.

You're talking about the legislation?

Yes.

All right, now let's return, if we may, on the assumption that this is applicable to the two Michigan cases, and that since historically they were, the school districts were not assessed for the purpose of secreting them.

What about a case such as the Charlotte-Mecklenburg case?

That's not in the facts.

I'm not as fully informed on whether those school districts in Mecklenburg County were established for that purpose, but I'm told they were not.

In this under-provision which provides for reopening, it's not quite that.

Let me just ask the question, can the people in...

Court orders such as Charlotte Mecklenburg now go back and reopen and say we didn't establish those school district lines on the basis of segregation, therefore the court order has to be revised.

Well, that and another reason is also because what this really, this legislation really intends to do is to have an actual national policy in this very vital area, south, north, east and west.

You could go back in that case on the purpose and effect language that we are talking about.

Or, on the broad language of Section 406, and I think I was going to raise this question in a short paragraph, I'd like to read it.

The application of an educational agency, court orders in effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and intended to end segregation of students on the basis of race, color, or national origin, shall be reopened and modified to comply with the provisions of this Act.

That means all court orders,

no matter when rendered since the ground decision, so that it provides the means, and indeed the directing, that we are going to have in national policy.

What section was that?

405.

406.

Today I ask the question, what about Oklahoma City?

You can't have separate schools.

But we have literally segregated schools.

Now what?

Well, what do you mean?

What we have is what we have here in Indiana, because it has around the intersection of 4 and 6, as any other school district would in the United States, to come up with standards or policies so that, let's say, a district judge in Oklahoma and the test circuit

came down with an order that went way beyond the requirements of a standard set forth in this legislation.

The case would be legal, and then that would be bring about a modified order of a court bringing that decision to the court of this legislation.

Mr. President, I wonder if I can elaborate on that just a second.

I think the difference here may be in rights and rights, because that is both.

And even though there may be a fighting of the jury segregation in a case,

The remedy is set down in the deck.

Then you have the right to come in and ask for a modification to bring those remedies down and do away with some of that expensive busing.

As I said before, I wonder if you could summarize the busing aspect of...

All of this legislation, the original specifications that the committee has from the present, related to the problem of busing as a newly problem that needed treatment.

First of all, as a part of those specifications, was the objective of preserving old schoolism.

And obviously we had the Richmond case in mind as a case where district courts were getting out beyond the requirements set down by the Supreme Court.

We also had the question of whether racial balance was in and of itself a legitimate requirement.

A legitimate act, to be, to which the bucking could be applied, attaching ways in that direction, and that is not a ground upon which the court may order this list of remedies.

And the third specification was that the legislation provided for an immediate stop to further excesses by the federal judiciary, and by excesses I mean beyond the established law.

And that's the purpose, of course, of the moratorium.

The moratorium reaches not only those cases that may be filed after the enactment of the moratorium,

But it reaches pending cases, it reaches cases in which in fact a decision has been rendered, but where the decree has not yet been effectuated.

Because it's either been paid by a higher court, or for some other reason has not been effectuated.

So in the case of the Richmond situation, for instance, where it's paid as an effect,

If the moratorium is promptly enacted, that will lay over the results of the recent hearing until congressional action.

So we have the moratorium.

And then we have a system by which busing is put at the bottom of the list.

And it gets your court in applying remedies to a found situation of desegregation, of segregation in the situation.

must go down to the hierarchy of remedies, and he must affirmatively find that it does not apply before he can get to the remedy itself.

And then, if he gets to that point, he may not apply it to store in candy bars for six grand,

beyond the limits already in effect in that district on a voluntary basis.

In other words, if they're already busing a certain number of third graders, then he may not order that any more third graders be bused than they had voluntarily undertaken in that school district.

As his other children, he may only impose bussing if none of the other remedies will do the job.

And then, his banning his daughter is only good for five years.

Now a busting order is good and perpetuitive, and it could be a district that has a considerable burden to come back in, petition for modification, petition for release, make new joints, and there's no permission for the expiration of a busting order.

And I have another quick note here that's very significant on this aspect of it, when you get to the point that this is the only remedy left.

That's right.

It has to be proven by clearing convincing evidence.

And then the legislation also provides for a say in that order pending appeal.

One of the problems has been that these federal district judges' orders don't go into operation immediately, and cause the problem to do pending the appeal to the circuit court and the Supreme Court, so that if there is a finding by a federal district judge, you've got to have custody.

If you file a timely appeal in the circuit court, that stays that order until the circuit court has to be in court to determine the matter.

President, may I ask a question?

Thank you for the interruption.

Mr. Richardson, I would like to inquire as to how long the extra federal assistance would be provided to the penitentiary account and...

What I want to be sure about here is that we're not opening up something here, or keeping something here, whereby ACW can withhold funds unless the school district, quote, voluntarily, quote, unquote,

No, well, I didn't get it.

I'm going to clear up.

As we said, Senator, we have to close it.

In this case, the transferring child takes money with him, and the school continues to get it until he graduates.

The proposal would make this automatic.

We wouldn't have the discretion to cut off, at least certainly not in terms of any terms, except to the extent that some affirmative discriminatory action we're taking comes within the provisions of legislation to deal with rights.

Of course they are not exclusively ATW concerned.

But administratively, the combination of the money and the credit and exercise was those of children, whether black or white, in schools where any of their numbers were significant.

Administratively, we would expect to establish this as around 30% of the enrollment.

And the transfer would be a transfer that came about as a voluntary action by the school system, without any provision for cutting off the funds.

Mr. President, the senator's question raises another point.

I have been talking about quarters all the way through here.

There's also another kind of order, and that's the Title VI ATWA course plan that's imposed on this.

This act also provides for a reopening of those plans where the remedies go beyond the standards of the Senate.

We recognize that the so-called voluntary and voluntary, the ones which are voluntary because they're enforced by ACW and arrived at under a kind of a...

It's pointed in the title of this gift to ATW.

Likewise, with the reopened motion of the district and the provisions modified towards the extension.

Is that under section 462?

I'll have to look at it.

It says court or federal agency, I think, all the way through.

I'll find that.

With respect to the plan made by the president on intervention.

We will take a look at every case that exists now that is open, and there's no final order, and determine whether or not an intervention would be required, A, to prevent the Congress from enacting a moratorium statute,

And then, when the Congress enacts the moratorium statute, if a federal district judge comes along and says, well, Congress doesn't have the constitutional rights to do this, then we will go back to them for the purpose of opposing any such determination by a federal judge and bringing about appeal procedures so that the moratorium is effective.

So that we would do it on two bases, before the enacting of the moratorium legislation, and then to protect the moratorium legislation by an intervention, if necessary, once passed.

Or if the intervention is needed.

If you feel that you've done a great job, I think that's quite important.

The moratorium is a good time for science to be done.

I agree.

With respect to the review of the cases and their posture in the present time, we're absolutely certain we'll be intervening in the Richland case and the Denver case, and then we're going to take a look at each and every one of them, and it's positive to see that there's a choice.

Why not have more auditorium on this?

That's my whole question.

That is the moratorium.

The moratorium, Senator, is guaranteed on, like I said, we do different things.

We have a whole range of visa legislation.

But the moratorium, the heart of it, is the moratorium on all bus experience.

There are no segregation.

It's an all-busting period.

It's an all-increased busting, and that means all busting for the purpose of raising the balance.

It's a straight-out moratorium.

I mean, moratorium on busting, where there's been busting, which we did under the court order.

What's that?

It doesn't go back.

As far as going back, but it turns of what it does now.

It takes the situation as it is now and stops getting more buses.

That's as far as we...

I believe we can go from a constitutional standpoint.

I think if we made the point a few minutes ago, this gives the Congress up until July next year, which is an adequate period of time, to adopt this so that then with respect to those old busing orders and segregation orders, we can reopen those cases to bring them within the standard of this legislation.

Could that not be done now?

Under this morgue reopening of the cases of officers to charge, we cannot...

It's not contemplated by the morgue trial legislation, nor would you want to do that, it seems to me, until the Congress has had an opportunity to consider and then pass this comprehensive approach on a national basis.

Let me just say this.

This idea is period.

Before they can reopen, do we have to pass both the moratorium legislation and the substantive legislation?

Well, we pass the substantive legislation tomorrow, so you wouldn't need moratorium.

And if you pass it tomorrow, the next day, you would go back in and reopen those cases.

It needs some appropriation.

I think it's more obvious if it's the greatest question.

Why don't you just run a little briefly through intervention?

Intervention without any action in the contract.

Intervention is what is called possible, and that is a moratorium in an intervention in the event that the Congress passes the Congress and the legislature wants to trip over those laws.

First we assume...

Without any reason without the constitutionality of the moratorium legislation.

Between now and the time that that's passed, we will be intervening in cases around the country, telling the judge to just hold.

Congress has got the moratorium legislation, just drop everything.

And hopefully we will succeed.

The moratorium legislation has passed.

Then a federal district judge will come along and say, well, I think they're crazy and the Constitution doesn't give you the right to do this.

I'm going to give you a fucking order anyway.

We go back to the left court and say the Congress has the constitutional power to do all things.

We are intervening to tell you that, and if you persist in that practice, we then appeal that to you.

Of course, we appeal so that you would be intervening on a continuing basis.

Now, boy, that's the event.

That's the event.

The government, there will be an awful lot of lawsuits filed awfully quickly to reopen these old orders to bring them within the national standards.

And the reopening of cases can only come in the event that the comprehensive legislation is passed.

The reopening under our proposal, the immediate intervention as we've already indicated on the basis of

The moratorium will cover all future orders of the court.

It will not reopen.

The reopening of papers can only come in the event that Congress passes a conference.

One point that you might use when you grow up,

And then, if I could just kind of add one point there, to my own views, I expect rather strongly.

It's me, around this table, just two weeks ago, with a group of constitutional lawyers for a couple of hours, went into these questions, and said that, looking at it from a constitutional standpoint, what I have just laid out, what we have recommended, legally is a constitution,

It's going beyond what we have done, I believe.

That's our judgment, that others may disagree.

That is why I would have to say, and I want to say to Bob Griffin and others who support the constitutional amendment who are here, that is the reason that I say that those who are concerned about this problem, as I am,

The Constitutional Amendment deserves consideration on its merits if you're talking about in terms of getting action now.

The Constitutional Amendment does not speak to that issue.

In terms of the comprehensive and dealing with the problem, we believe legislation is the preferred device at this point.

But, looking down the road, the events that you wish to go back, as you have suggested in some of these instances, further than our legislation would go, that constitutes an amendment on the ground.

Mr. President, could I ask questions about the equal opportunity for you?

Yes, of course.

I've got four questions that I could ask briefly.

Number one, is the $2.5 billion already budgeted since 1973?

Yes.

Let me ask the question again.

Is it new money, or is it the same money?

Is that your question?

Because that's what you're going to be asked if you get back to the house.

A billion and a half dollars.

That 1,600,000 billion dollars is provided for under Title I in fiscal 73.

And that's not new money in any real sense.

We will, as George Shultz emphasized, we will administratively emphasize

What we call comparability, that is, that the money spent under Title I must be over and above what would otherwise be spent for all children in the district.

And in that sense, we will be more sharply targeting the money than has been true in the past, because we will pay our own money to the state, especially the general aid and our orders and so on and so forth.

The remaining money is all money that would be appropriated under the emergency school assistance legislation.

It's new in the sense that the authorization would be new, not new in the sense that we have not previously requested it.

We did request 500 million in fiscal 72 and an additional fee in fiscal 73.

We will not be able to spend the money in fiscal 72 now, even if you see funds that move faster than I think as well.

So the billion and a half will be pushed into fiscal 73.

We would expect to use roughly a billion of this for the supplement of critical mass money.

That would be roughly a quarter of a division for fiscal 73 or other non-necessary purposes associated with the de-segregation process.

And about a quarter of a division could be carried over into fiscal 74.

And I think it would be such that we would...

...seek to make legislation permanent on the basis of... ...continuing authorization for digit dollars within future years.

It would follow on, and that, of course, would be... ...what these institutions immediately ask for.

So, essentially, therefore... ...if bidding on an annual basis would be new money... ...in the sense that it depends upon new legislation...

But it has already been budgeted for 50%.

In other words, there is a footer.

There is a redirection of funds now.

But as far as all the money, the two and a half billion that I referred to at my company last night, all of that is included in the budget that we have already provided at the Congress.

There is no new money that has been put in progress in access to other things.

The second question I have is,

Welfare information.

There are many Chicanos, Appalachians, who are too proud to want to offer their work in our content.

Do you have any plans for a more accurate definition of poor?

Because if you have to use 1970s methods, you're going to be...

I had met with a group of congressmen, and at this very point that

Actually, I, like many others, tend to be city-oriented.

I live in New York, and I live in Los Angeles, and you think of the central area as being a problem, and they're a terrible problem.

But also, it's interesting to note that in terms of four children, and also in terms of four schools,

There are more in rural areas than there are in cities, and they are often overlooked for the reason that they don't get in the numbers.

But Elliot has worked on this, and I think we're, as one of the things about this, we're still just in that direction.

It's more effective than ever before, and that's true at all.

Yes, sir.

We will move to the 1970s census data base as rapidly as possible as part of the answers.

And we also would encourage schools to... We don't think...

I mentioned comparability.

There's also a question of how you count the concentrations for children.

McElroy's mission recommends in effect that instead of looking at the numbers in all the counties, you look at concentrations by schools and target money that way.

Do you think we should move in that direction also?

I still have three questions for you.

One is, how do you get your money that goes for the students who will transfer from a concentrated school over there?

Probably a majority of minority students who do a school over there, they would use it.

The minority, where do you get that money from, the extra money, because they've already had a lot of money allocated, and secondly, could they use that money also to pay part of the cost of transferring those funds?

The first part of the question is,

It depends basically on the allocation of funds to the school system under the ESA.

The money that will go with the child is the ESA money.

The transfer of money to the school will continue to come.

The child, I know this is kind of what they did for the textbook, but that's probably where Hillary is at.

And it's a question of...

simply having enough money in the ESA cost to carry out that commission.

As to the use of the funds for transportation, this, of course, is the question that would depend on the resolution of the issue now in the conference.

The legislation does not directly deal with it.

In our judgment, our balance is that the priority needs for the funds for education...

...would lead us to believe that the Kennedy prohibition against the use of money for busing places... ...we would be at the end of the house, and the house pass bill should stay there.

That's it.

Could I mention one thing to the President, sir?

He's not being clear.

He's making claims.

He's got congressional leadership.

I want to have a view on when the moratorium ends.

The date July 1, 1973 has been mentioned, and the legislation has been mentioned, but then the question is, what legislation?

And of course, you have just proposed legislation, but I'm sure we all recognize the Congress of Perfections.

Yeah.

So the legislation, the moratorium legislation said that...

that the legislation which terminates the moratorium is legislation declared by the Congress to be that contemplated by the moratorium in the legislation itself.

The legislation that ends the moratorium is legislation that the Congress declares to be the legislation contemplated in the moratorium itself.

I was just talking to Senator Frenchfield, though.

And I was thinking, as others have talked, how do we relate this to the current situation of a higher ed emergency to a country?

Is there a way, from a parliamentary point of view, to achieve some, maybe a good bit, of what's sought here,

I think you have fewer problems in the Senate than we would have in the House, because our germanism rules are much stricter than yours.

But if you want quick action, if there's a way to untangle the Senate problem within the confines of that country and incorporate it,

For all of this, in that conference report, it would be very, very comforting.

Thank you.

After what stage is the conference just in session?

I believe it will take a month.

It will take a month now.

It would have taken three months.

In other words, it will take a month now if you build a fire.

If you would discuss this, I think it's very important.

You've got these experts here.

What can a conference do?

I'm not trying to put any of the senators or congressmen on the spot on what we're doing, but as I understood, and this was raised in our meeting when I met with the cabinet committee, as to whether the conference should...

I think we can probably handle a moratorium.

I think so, because one of the Senate amendments on the Scott-Manchfield, there is a moratorium.

And there is a moratorium, a proper one, the so-called Broomfield amendment, in the House.

The difficulty which they face is this, and I think that can be overcome.

The House has voted to instruct its country

If the conferees stuck to the House's instructions, they couldn't do what you want to do.

If they feel that because the president has spoken, they now have a new situation, so that they have the right to bring back to the House perhaps the item of disagreement.

No, it's a separate vote.

The president's plan, it is susceptible to settlement in the county.

Can I ask this?

You mean, and I don't want to be so naive about this, I should know more about the bill, but I'm going to try to answer this problem.

Could the conference do anything with Elliot's...

I think we can study into that carefully, and I think we can go a considerable way.

I think that, let me say that, I think that the moratorium...

The case for the constitutional nationality draft of the moratorium, I realize, let me say it, talking to lawyers, I kind of just made this point, talking to the lawyers, before Camilo, for example, I'm sure you can imagine, he believes that the moratorium, even without the second piece of legislation, would stand on its own because of the confusions over it.

I don't disagree with that.

Others, the Chicago group, Jadis, and their group, I think you will remember, Jordan, don't.

More strongly that there should be, there needs to be some money.

But in any event, in terms of buying some insurance, in the event that the conference could, in addition to the moratorium, move someplace, someway, in the way, the direction of the compensatory education, it would be helpful.

Would you agree, Elliot?

I agree with that.

That would be easier than the other parts.

I don't have any knowledge really how far countries should go in terms of the other parts of the legislation, including the strength of this.

It would be a resolution slightly different than anything you need to bill, and it has no problem with your name, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we are assisted by the fact that the set of actions was a motion of substitute.

A Senate measure for a House measure, that liberalizes the rules and concepts, not tremendously, but it does, so that you can pick up anything in the Senate bill and anything in the House bill, so long as the subject is dealt with in the House bill, we believe, based upon that wrinkle, which is just a happenstance.

The good deal can be done, but it will take detailed study by Al and myself to determine how far we can go.

The important thing, Mr. President, is this.

The busing thing has been overblown.

You have punctured that balloon.

That's the main thing you did last night.

It's been much overblown.

That isn't the end at all of education.

20 million kids are bused now, so you'll buy a package.

If I can interrupt you for a second today, Mr. President.

I think we should have no illusions.

That is what we call an issue, an issue that politicians talk about.

And, incidentally, it divides Republicans, it divides Democrats.

We have seen that in a recent primary in Florida.

As far as an issue is concerned...

We have to deal with the reality of the fact

at what people think it is, is there.

Now, whether that is, whether we, I think also, if I could just say one other thing, I did not appreciate and agree with the views of some who interpreted the recent war as

saying that all the votes for Wallace were votes for racists.

That's not true.

I don't know.

I do feel that there's a bussing against what are not racists.

I'm off.

And a few, but most of them are concerned about their kids.

And so I feel that, and I know your views on this thing, but I do feel that on this issue it may be overhauled.

It may be bigger than it ought to be, but it's big.

If you would agree with that, President, my worries gave, I generally don't fault in this, but my worries were caught up too soon.

No, I think you're right.

It is overblown in fact, but it's not overblown in terms of public opinion.

We haven't overestimated exactly.

That's why even I had to take it into account, and that's why I still hardly take back the Scott-Manch deal.

And the reason is, Mr. President, that I want to accomplish what you want to accomplish.

Best education for kids.

I have no doctor in that field.

And I think, on the whole, given, give or take the usual 10%, you've done pretty well.

Thank you.

And so, Mr. President, we will try, and I can assure you, we will try to do two things.

One, to have our civil rights friends understand that it's the substance that counts.

And we've had a massive testimony, quote, try, because, you know, we have to.

We've done things before that they didn't like at the beginning, and then they gradually learned that it was the best that could be done.

And we will try on the basis that if you want to do anything,

You have to do this, or something like it.

Otherwise you do nothing, and the situational subsequent would be worse.

And whereas they too have a public intention, we have to serve the substantive interest of our people.

What is the house instruction?

That's the hard... All the three...

Thank you for watching!

Thank you for approving that thing.

Now, Daniel, this will now get to the Senate.

Now, this is the face table inside of Jackson.

This is the way by which you're going through a new pass.

Well, I want to register my strategy, because the assumption that is thrown out here, that either the House or the Senate bill can take moratorium, is it not?

They only say they do not affect the jurisdiction or the power of the Florida District Court.

And it seems to me that

If it's going to take a month or three months, as Jack said, monthly with the Congress, why doesn't the Congress go ahead and ask your moratorium bill, ask your moratorium bill, but why do you think that would affect the provisions that are in the, in some way, the appeal, so that the concretes are not?

Mr. President, if you're going to strike these provisions, you do have to act

The House really won't believe what you're doing.

A process to do it will not be satisfactory.

Well, I'm telling you, it's the same in the Navy.

That's what you're getting at.

It's the conference with the House instructions.

It's got to be hung up, period.

Unless you get a moratorium.

Not necessarily, Mr. President.

I don't agree with that.

I thoroughly disagree with Bob.

The virtue of doing it at the conference, and I'm convinced he can't deny it, is doing what he says in the conference.

Because you've got three amendments, not one.

So you not only have an amendment in the Senate of the House of Appeals,

Therefore, if you can forbid all of busing, you can forbid part of busing.

So that I believe, and I was respectfully different, that it is entirely germane, and that it can be done.

Now, it has a great advantage.

If you present it in that package, you're doing something affirmative.

You're putting up money, you're giving a lot of schools and colleges money, you're settling a very big question at the same time that you're dealing with this issue.

And I think within that context...

The whole proposal of the president, as Jerry said, the House won't take a promise, neither will the Senate, but you give them an awful lot of action at the same time that you give them the busting situation.

The House has authority, if it wants to use them, to force the Rules Committee and bring in non-German members.

But I'd like to answer you to look at, and I have a question.

In every way.

Now, I think we've got all kinds of latitude which we can work.

There may be a question on some part here that we haven't really considered yet.

I don't know, but I think right now that the...

The Congress Committee really has the chance, but I guess that this doesn't matter, that really the experts ought to sit down in front of it.

But I think it's very helpful for us to know if you could ask one other question this spring.

Where does the Constitutional Amendment stand as opposed to two years ago, Bill?

That's why I raised the question.

I'm the chair of the House of Representatives.

Do I understand if I'm going to have to adjourn?

Once you get it out of your presence, it would be taken out of the gun.

It would be in the next order.

And you get it also with the answer card.

This year.

I sure hope we can do it soon.

Can I ask about the process?

What are the processes?

What do you think?

On the other hand, the question arises

Bill, are you all considering both legislation and the Constitution?

We have talked about legislation, but we haven't studied it yet.

Mr. President, on this question, with great reluctance, I sign a discharge petition.

I recognize the time now.

But I was absolutely convinced that the court, number one, wasn't going to change the statutory.

And number two, based on the comments made this morning, I had reservations that there was any...

...legislative remedies that we could undertake.

To be frank with you, if I may interrupt, before I came back to market in China three weeks ago, I sat down with the cabinet committee.

I had doubts, too.

But I want to say, if I can't, just one thing for this cabinet committee...

Never have so few done so much in really working the problem over in the United States.

I want you to be sure to know, and Jack, this is mine, we not only talked to black and white people, but we talked to Coleman, we talked to him on one side, and Point A on the other side, and talked to the civil rights leaders, and so forth and so on.

We have their views.

We had all of the people who supported the Constitution.

Tom Seed was over here, and Bob, you remember that?

But this cabinet debate has really gone into this.

I digress to tell you that I had serious doubts about this president.

Could I ask one specific question?

Sure.

If we enact a legislative proposal, which I think can come from the Congress, I don't believe that you can get two-thirds in the House.

On the other hand, if the Congress does not respond to the legislative action, or if the Congress does and the courts disregard it,

You'll get more than if you diverge dang quickly.

That's a fact of life.

I think it makes sense.

Yes, I want to ask Josh Schultz a detailed question on the H1A2.

The student may not be bused to the school in which he was not already being bused.

Have you had any situation where the student is being bused 15 miles and there is an opportunity for him to be bused 2 miles?

Otherwise we can have a more favorable situation.

As for this flat state, we seem to rule that out.

I'll take it first, please.

Do you need a gun or a headboard or what else?

Under the moratorium.

He stopped.

But this does not reach voluntary undertakings by a school board to rearrange their transportation plan because they've opened a new school or because they've got more children enrolled in junior high schools this year than last year or something like that.

The population grows.

A new school is being built.

It's a right to enable it.

It's a new trackbook.

That's all right.

The moratorium only applies to the orders of federal courts.

That's correct.

And it says no federal court for eight years or a short period of time in the history of Congress will act, will go into effect if it provides for more funding for the purpose of racial violence.

Is that correct?

I don't know if that answers your question.

Yes, it does.

But school districts can go off, and they should.

And do the plans, and so forth and so on.

ATW be there to help.

I don't think all of their plans have been ATW-inspired.

Wait a minute, that's my line.

I'm sorry.

I would hope that the Judiciary Committee and the House and the Senate would work immediately on the moratorium and not assume that the Congress is going to take care of it and therefore do nothing for harm.

Because we're going to do the best we can.

and I think we can, but it's going to be helpful if we have the expertise of the Judiciary Committee, and if we don't get it done, I think that it would be terrible if we had this most delayed waiting for the Constitution.

Mr. President, I want to follow up to one thing you were speaking about, the Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitutional Amendment could be added in the Senate, as an amendment, to a resolution proposing the Constitutional Amendment.

I don't want to require more of a majority vote,

It could add to another hundred.

For example, the equal rights for one amendment is up.

It will, of course, require people to look at that.

It could add an amendment.

Here we find the application of that that is linked on.

The idea is that the court finds a bad situation.

With reference to racial, with reference to racial values, it describes, it describes a remedy which

That's my line.

The only thing I would hope is that the Judiciary Committee and the House and the Senate would work immediately on the moratorium and not assume that the Congress is going to take care of it and therefore do nothing for harm.

Because we're going to do the best we possibly can, and I think we can, but it's going to be helpful to have the expertise of the Judiciary Committee that we don't get a chance to.

I think that it would be terrible if you had this much delay waiting for you.

Mr. President, I want to follow up to one thing you were speaking about, the Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitutional Amendment could be added, as an amendment, to a resolution proposing the Constitutional Amendment.

I don't want to require more of a majority vote.

To add to another amount.

For example, the equal right to one amendment at a time.

It will, of course, require you to go back.

You can add an amendment.

And here we find the application of that, and it's linked on the idea that the court finds a bad situation with reference to racial, with reference to racial values and what have you.

It's prescribed, it's prescribed a remedy which is worse in terms of quality education, which is the objective of education.

Now then, where is Rick Waldo Brown?

Rick has the objective of Brown.

Now the objective of Brown.

Now where in all of this do we run the work?

Is this proposition dealt with?

That one must end.

I think what the president is proposing here is that the Congress declares as a matter of public policy that no child kindergarten through 6th grade

It should be transported for those persons.

It's flat.

And then, only older children in those circumstances where no other conceivable remedy reaches the wrong.

So that it's a vicious remedy at last resort.

And that's the state of the public policy going against the problem that you can get.

I'm going to defer to my tradition

Excuse me.

In section 403.

C of the legislation which says, no court, department or agency of the United States shall require the transportation of any student in such transportation, exposes the risk to the health of such student, or constitutes a significant impediment on the educational process with respect to such student.

I see that as only writing.

I see that there, and I give it full intent, but I refer to section B on page 2 at the bottom of the page.

And that defines denial of equal educational opportunity.

And I suggest that without something in that tenet being in there to say a child who is transported on two distances and for an undue term is being denied equal education is listed in that part of the definition.

I think it's rational in itself that if you represent it as a whole

The statute is...

And our whole bussing is not allowed at all for children 6th grade and below.

It is as a last resort and then only in temporary for people above.

The whole assumption of the statute is that bussing is injurious

...to quality education.

That's the whole assumption of the statute.

And your point is, it's not written in there.

But I tell you, we wouldn't... You wouldn't get to us if we knew that.

Unless the assumption was...

This is an education act.

And then we say, but we do only the last three words.

And then only the most extreme.

And then only the temporary things.

Now why is all that done?

It's because...

Certainly, our conviction, I mean mine at least, and I'm sure that others have, that case after case, we find that busing is a right thing.

It leads to busing in and out itself.

It leads to injurious, rather than severe, it is an injurious thing to do.

We will have that, but on the other hand, some of these members here will need it not only for their colleagues, but for others.

You've got additional puppies?

Yes, for the judiciary.

The rest of the story, but I know these are sent to the members of the House of Representatives.

Thank you very much for your time.

I just want to say one final thing.

Putting it out cold turkey.

Sorry.

I don't believe we can go further.

I don't believe we can go on further than we should have.

But looking at the issue of plastic, overblown or not, Jack and I just understand exactly what you're talking about.

Looking at the issue of plastic, you all know my position.

I've got more thinking about this than any domestic problem, as my friends in the problem center have.

As a lawyer, I've got to follow the responsibility as one who has to carry out a court order that I disagree with.

But I think I want to say this.

I try to think, who else could do it if you want to stop busing now?

In this case, the courts won't do it.

They're screwing it up.

As far as the constitutional amendment is concerned, they won't do it.

As far as the president is concerned, he can't stop it.

I can order the ATW to do it, and I can order the attorney general to intervene, and he started to intervene right away.

As far as action on this is concerned, if you want action now to stop adding fuel to this plane that is dividing this country, dividing parties in relation, it can be done, and that's a congress.

That's why he comes to you.

And we would urge therefore that on the moratorium, which does not really, as they say, punish your convictions, which does not go to the heart of the differences of opinion there, but on the moratorium, it is the Congress that must act.

The President can't do it, the courts can't do it, the Constitutional Method will not read it, but the Congress can, and that's why they've asked you for this action.

Thank you very much.