Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 20, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
February 24, 1981
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00988R000200110026-1.pdf3.51 MB
S CONGRESSIONAL RestD--SEi`~TA'T Febrtaar-ii 24, 1981 `t~07ieip,;rl +4,1RgtPWOOM8R 0 t1C02,(pp'hvidanc; quality rev d For RIeaso.-2Q4 o to promptly move the 9) ;a'*,, f Missal. busing cannot be said to aid in educatio -o our youth. Destruction of 'If your review reveals, on the other brand, this goal. Tile burden is born by the neighborhood schools hurts that goal, that some or all of these actions-are clearly students, their families, and by the depriving schools of dollars, and denying meritorious, then we fully recognize and school districts. Busing has a polartz- children the opportunities to participate support the responsibility of the Susttce tie- ing effect. It deflects attenttran and re- In activities near their own homes. haneedeat :mato enforce the law in an even-- sources from the most important goal I urge my colleagues to give this Ieg-view ande nner. It our and racacea- mendsuon, however, , that this s 2ldmiesistm- which is to improve the quality of eau- islation their support. It is time Congress tion should adopt a policy of proposing and cation. place real, yet reasonable limits on the seeking reasonable, practicable remedies In While school districts are faced with extent of busing as a remedy to segrega- school desegregation cases that do not raaa- exorbitant bills due tocourt-ordered bus- tion. This act would do just that. date busing for racial balance. we belleva lug, they also suffer economic setbacks that the constitution's guarantee of equal when fragmented. corm-nunities fail to By Mr. STAFFORD (for himself, educational opportunity for all puouat . approve necessary tax levies. Families, blot itiOYNZIiAN, Mr. CHAFES, Mr. can tae achieved nitYnoax ir home in 3 DOLPH, Mr. ,'.:tMYSON, Mr. their rced for h ave sac expensive. forcing an an expensive. controverst4l tr_ua_ who portatton plan on any_schoai.district, and convenient location near schools, often Aria ,Mr.B?Au'cUS,Mr.BuR.nicx... that the resources wasted on fenced busing are forced to watch their children boar La:, MS. GORTON, M:r. can be far better used in Improving the buses beaded for schools crosstown. And . HuD Es=oN1 hfr. Ixozix8, and- quality of .education Withla the partictlla-a students, the majority of Whom utilize 24IT. ASSffNAGA) public school systems school buses .anyway, sometimes must be S. 533t , the Committee on Environ- bilc Works t . an t Thank you for yourcarelul and PrOmPl transported twice as far as they might men ' -t.ic ec:t.eINGS .ac'r OF teat rttantion to this important -natter, and. we il di y nar or . look forward to hearing from. you. regarding it is these pending cases.. Not only do school districts and stu , r. S`i nr r C, 01 With kindest personal regards Sind best dents bear the cost of busing. so does with mixed emotions that I introduce to- artshea this Nation. Upwards of 155,060 gallons day the Public Buildings Act of 193L I Sincerely, of gasoline a day are-consumed shuttling am glad to do so, because in the view of ST5Ort THuRuOrrn. children to and from schools in an at- this Senator from Vermont it is excelent PAUL LAXALT. tempt to achieve racial balance. And and belated legislation which I strongly Mr. LAXALT. Mr. President. I anal whether real - racial balance can be recommend to all my colleagues here, in pleased to be a coauthor of the Neigh- achieved through busing is still the ulti- the Senate. However, I am disappointed borhood School Act of 1981 with the mate question. at the necessity to do so because I regret distinguished junior Senator from Lout I would say busing has not achieved that the similar legislation in the last stana, Mr. JorssTON. This act has been that goal- -' Congress-S. 2080-failed to be enacted written to place reasonable limits on the. In fact, resegregation Is becoming into law. That bill, the Public Eu' dir_gs power of courts to order busing to carat,- more evident In light of the increased Act of 1980, introduced by Senator lists racial balance. In a sense, it allows injunctive relief ordered by our courts. Mo?rti-m_Ax and myself, was unanimously children the continued right to attend Statistics from the cities of Boston and report ed from the Committee on En- neighborhood schools, and not be forced Detroit provide a substantive case of the vironment and Public Works. It over- to travel miles to school because of a white exodus. For example, in 1974, Bos- whelmingly pawed the Senate by a mar- court-enforced order. ton's racial composition was 57 percent gin, of 9 to 1. Regrettably, I roust report This legislation Is a response to the white and 43 percent black. By the late - that we were unable to reach an accepta- overwhelming public opposition to court- 19710's, the picture had changed. Boston's bin compromise with the House in con- ordered busing. chile it would not 2^ar . makeup was 39 percent white and 61 ference in spite of concerted e--orts on all instances of busing for desegregation percent black and other minorities. the part of Senators MoXN'HAN, RAN- purposes. it would Impose restraints on Why? The finger is most often pointed DOLPH, SMiPSON. CHAFES, and the other the court's ability to order busing at any at the increase in busing orde s. conferees., cost. Finally, yet, perhaps foremost is the It_is with a sense of pride that I say The Neighborhood School Act of 1981 fact that desegregation has provided few that the senior Senator from New York would not prevent voluntary busing.. It academic bene-its for minority students (Mr. MoYNnrAtr) joins me in introducing would not prevent the transportation of _ Forced busing as a remedy to segregate this legislation. It was with equal pride students to magnet schools, or to achieve tion has resulted in no real academic that. I joined with him when he ir tro- an educational purpose. success in terms of reducing the gap in duced the similar legislation in the last However, it would prevent court-or- black-white achievement. Academic Congress. I want the record to reflect dered busing If reasonable alternatives achievement tests have continued to de- that this bill, like its predecessor, Is the with respect to travel time, distances cline throughout the country. As a re- product of partnership. danger or inconvenience are available. ' suit, both blacks and whites have re- - For several years the Committee on It would prohibit busing if it require sponded negatively to-busing in several Environment and Public'Works has been a student to cross a school district or recent nationwide polls. increasingly concerned about the uublIri if the total daily bus ride per student Congress has been debating this issue buildings prof rate of the Goy ernnient. exceeds 30 minutes and/or 10 miles more for nearly two decades-since the Civil _ as administered by the General Services than the distance to the school closest Rights Act of 1954. Numerous solutions Administration, and the need to a.iter to the student's home. to segregation have been proposed. Many the congressional authorizing procedures. Busing as a court-ordered remedy to methods have been introduced. Busing Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- segregation would also be prohibited by has continuously headed the list of solu- sent that views from the committee's this act if It would result in a greater tions which provide less than the desired report to the Senate on several public degree of racial imbalance or have a net. result, true educational quality. We have building proposals of August 1979, be harmful effect on the quality of erluca- limited the administrative authority to included in the RECORD at the conchi- tion. - . assign students to schools In the Eagle- sion of my remarks. These statements In addition, it would offer a unique ton-Biden amendment in 1974. And we describe the committee's early and pro- method for affected students and their have restricted the use of Federal funds found concern with the Nation's public families to challenge court-ordered bus- to bus students cross town In the Each buildings program. lag as a remedy. In this legislation, the amendment of the Education Amend- The ACTIN G PRESIDENT pro Attorney General is authorized to en- ments of 1974. But no legislation has yet temoore. Without Objection. It is so force the limitations on the courts if a been passed which limits the court's ordered. student or his parents, sign a written ability to use busing, which i3 otherwise (See exhibit 1.) - complaint, and also if the student is prohibited, as a remedy to the problem. Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, fol- financially unable to maintain legal pro- That fact, in Itself. poses a real con- lowing reports and criminal proceeding feedings. flirt in terms of judicial and legislative alleging misfeasance and malfeasance Court-ordered busing is a burden, even authority. In the GSA, the committee in March art Oisstacle to the universal goal of None of us will disagree that nothing 1979, voted unanimously to Impose a Approved For Release.2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP$5-009888000200110026=1- ~eba t i~+ s, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE )S 148.5 n:oratosl=a a on further aut}9rp~Fpgg~ Fo#ile~3.2tb6C~3/Eb7iFl4tR85-Q9$~ 0 Obi moos con- of nanemergency public 'buildings proj- appro ions process. The committees :sr-nT, tea cerl5t' ?:oranit- ects. The committee "ed at that time approve projects without -regard to tee's report: to the Budget Committee on to undertake a comprehensive review whether funds are available for them. the 1981 budget be included in the RFc- of the public buildings program and to As a result, GSA has a backlog of proj- rsa-::; at the conclusion of my remarks. develop comprehensive remedial legisla- ects that have been approved and are The ACTING. PRESIDENT pro tem- tion. pending but will cost about $664 million pore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, I .ask. unanimous con- to complete, according to a recent GAO th about the need to abolish. the tects to compete for GS' cop ;irissic+rzs Cac~mi or review and approval in the: a -- so-called prospectus system and reform based on their proposed design t;oncept, ce-see either cause Interminable and costly the:atlthori_z ttion procedures, and Icons- for Federal projects. i si~m, cempe"i- yproject dela;x ca the one ?no,, or taco a pletely concur in his arguments. I shall tions such as these have long been -a , the appearance of unseemly rate in jud-- subnl L for the RECORD a paper Which I staple of architectural practice. . rEY meat on the Other hand. rice 'red on this subject last year. of the Nation's great bulldings, including Piecemeal submission. consideration, and - and Li's.-r'r approval b of prospectuses the Capitol, White House or the recludas committees. it"cla GSA has completed plans that in- , ft. dieate the casts and savings of the first of Ccangress, have been outc;=oe~th t ee Each prospectus submitted anti apt road an- 10 years of this program. At the be- design competitions, pears to carry the.same dogree o* urgency. heir of the Committee on Environment Some areftite.ts are leery cf riest l there is little or no opportunity for analy- l an? Public I'Vorks, and of. the Coln nit_ competitions, citing a fear p' +t col^x : ucally comparing prospectuses with respect, tee on public Works and Transportation tions that were time consuming, exp - for e..ampie, to cost per square foot. or of the House of Hai presentatives, t1 e rive or in which fancizl I ce l Z1S V1011 square feet per employee, or to compare tha Public Buildings Service of the GSA this out over more practical solutiors. Alt o1% f~ctor.>-- such as employee: crowding, a s of year presented us vrith an annual and these very real past problem can be existing building, etc.-which might be 5-year plan, I should sitar that the plaza overcome by conducting competitions .cited as justification for initiating prorecta. raaicm is excellently done and it is much to the under stringent, fair ground raises, and imThe sheer volume of possible to give n-dept;zcrevise's to all, credit of the executives and employees the legislation incorporates such scly- and yet, without an opportunity to comae e of the Public Buildings Service that it lines' By limiting the time fr i ie? - all at once, it is nearly impossible to single 4 a s entirely their product and not that pence, and complexity of submissions a - out. those which should undergo, r iativdi;y . lowed to a corilpetition,'tii bill insares: more scrutiny. of sine ro .z;zif) or the Cant, the competitions place large 2nd scull Piecemeal 'approval, and the fact the t IU the next 10 years, the construction firms on the same competitive fooR 9. Prospectuses once authorized are authori ed -salprogram mandated by the being under- would re-- We are see that talent, forever, gives the co :imittees no incentive t in over l 0 poJ eCta" and not money moneyllri or determined connections. will. t to keep their authorizations within realistic a that at cost e about $5.7 billion, In I assure my colleagues that t h.-!z leggy- budget limits. A prospectus can be. fully .fora that p prod alone; over $u?8 billion i s lation is wholly wasp IMLk r;i4 a the ai cpgroved and lie dormant for yeas be Ie? payments would be avoided, a of go, it gains an appropriation. Since pro sect- flgtr'e all t""e Iil're impressive when one of effecting, economies in trio Feder.-al uses carry no fiscal Yei.r authors': aria TGe ca,