Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I think it is terribly important that the challenge which the Senator from Connecticut poses be taken seriously by every Member of this body, whether he represents a Southern or a Northern State.

We all have deep and compelling racial problems. None of us can deny that. Those problems largely remain unsolved. To a large extent, they are getting worse. We cannot deny that.

A few years ago we were challenged in a similar way by the South on the fair housing statute.... Mr. President, at that time, a distinguished southerner stood up and said that he intended to propose a fair housing amendment to the 1968 Civil Rights Act. He said that northern Senators were so hypocritical that if a fair housing amendment dealing with the problems of the North were included they would vote against the Civil Rights Act. We accepted that challenge and proposed a strong fair housing amendment. Surprisingly, we did not receive the support from the South which had been threatened. Five successive cloture votes were needed to pass the amendment that dealt with the North and fair housing, which is at the core of de facto segregation. Thus, there is evidence that the Senate has accepted the fact that this is a national problem and is not just a regional one. Our willingness to deal with this problem in our own communities and not just in communities in the South brings me to my question about amendment No. 463, which enjoys the support of the Senator from Connecticut.

What bothers me about the amendment is that while it declares a policy of opposition to de facto segregation, it does nothing about it. What would the Commissioner of the Office of Education or the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare do if this amendment were adopted? Does it require him to pursue a policy of busing? How does he determine where de facto segregation exists and where it does not? Would it require new desegregation guidelines including racial percentages and what percentage would be pursued? Does the Commissioner include the schools in the suburbs in solutions to the problems of the cities? Does the amendment require him to pursue vigorous enforcement of the fair housing statute, or not? Does this amendment really require any movement against de facto desegregation? I am afraid that all this amounts to is a political gesture in opposition to de facto segregation. The amendment itself does nothing at all except possibly confuse the effort against the de jure segregation. . . . If the amendment were to be agreed to, I assert that the Commissioner of Education, the Secretary of HEW, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, would not have the slightest idea what to do about it.

For example, section 401 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is not affected by the amendment, provides that: “Desegregation shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.”

And section 804 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act states that nothing in this act shall be construed “to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance.”

In other words, this amendment would retain provisions in present law that prohibit funds to assist in busing in a segregated situation arising from a living pattern. That would continue. In other words, this amendment would retain provisions prohibiting busing which, to my knowledge, is perhaps the best known way to overcome de facto segregation. This amendment would declare a policy against de facto segregation but not remove prohibitions against doing anything to implement it.

It is simply not the same task to eliminate a problem that exists because of a living pattern, as it is to deal with the problem in the school system that exists because of separating children not on the basis of geography but on the basis of color.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I may say to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, that what takes place in the South in de jure segregation is exactly the same as the situation that takes place in the North in de facto segregation.

One can look at the figures. It is exactly the same thing that takes place, because it is not due to the segregation of the schools, but is due to the segregation of the population. We are separating blacks and whites. We have de jure segregation in the South and de facto segregation in the North. But the schools are just as black in the North as they are in the South.

What I am trying to say and what the Senator from Mississippi is saying is that if we say it is wrong to do it in the South, we ought to say it is just as wrong to do it in the North.

Let us be honest with ourselves. Whether it is de jure or de facto segregation, it is segregation.

I want them all treated the same way. Let us not have any illusions that then the whites in the North will start to worry about solving the problem. Our problem is that we have a racist society. We are just as racist in the North as they are in the South.

One can go anywhere in this country and see the situation that prevails. But we hide behind the fact that ours is de facto segregation instead of de jure.

I do not want to have either of the two.

Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, as I said earlier, I agree entirely with the Senator from Connecticut. There is a serious problem in the North and something should be done about it. But I point out that the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi does absolutely nothing. It implies that something will be done. But it does not repeal the provision in the existing statute which prohibits busing to overcome racial imbalance which is one of the few short-run ways I know of that would do anything about de facto segregation in the schools.

This amendment appears to do something. It perhaps satisfies our feelings of guilt about hypocrisy. And we are hypocritical at times. But I do not think that a political slogan will suffice.

If we want to deal with the situation in the North, let us not kid ourselves that this does anything about the problem of de facto segregation. It may indeed simply weaken the effort to do anything about de jure segregation.

Mr. RIBICOFF. This is the argument that has been used: That this is a ploy by the southerners to make sure that we eliminate any action on de jure segregation. But I am going to insist that we keep our eye on the basic problem, that if we are going to say, “You are going to eliminate all de jure segregation in the South,” then I think that we should do the same thing in the North with respect to de facto segregation to make sure we are not going to use the hard hand in the South and let the northerners escape their responsibility.

I know the argument is used, “If you do this, it will slow down integration in the South.” I will fight to eliminate it in the South. But we should be willing to stand on this floor and in our own States and say that what we want for the South, we want for all of the States in the North, too.

Source: Sen. Walter Mondale (Minn.), “Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1969,” Congressional Record 116, pt. 3 (February 9, 1970): 2903–04.