There are many private schools in my district. Many have come into being since 1954. All these private schools are financed by parents who have already paid for and are still paying for public schools. Some seek to avoid racial integration, others look for quality education which they do not feel is available in the federally dominated public schools. Again we may have to upgrade the public schools if this is the problem and reassure such parents that we have something to offer in education. If people are to drive from Virginia or Maryland to Washington to enter their children in D.C. schools it will only be because they are better, safer, and offer an education.

Mr. BROYHILL. Several years ago that was the case, and people in Virginia were getting permission to send their children to District public schools.

You also state in your resolution, and I am not offering an amendment, that people who live in the District of Columbia and work for the Federal Government should do this. How about those who reside in the District of Columbia but work in the suburbs?

Mr. RARICK. I would be most happy to suggest to the committee that you amend the resolution from "and" to "or."

Mr. BROYHILL. You would agree to that as an amendment?

Mr. RARICK. Yes.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I am pleased to know that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia would be for a commuter tax, a reciprocal tax, if the Members of the Congress were to agree to a District tax. Is that what I understand?

Mr. BROYHILL. I will check the record and if I said that we will correct that record promptly.

What I intended to say-and I think the gentleman misinterpreted me purposely, but this is all right since we are talking on the lighter side is that if we do consider a reciprocal tax, to tax the income of non-residents working in the District of Columbia then by all means Members of Congress should be included. There should be no exceptions. I would insist upon that but I would still vote against the measure even with that provision included. Congress would be subjected to severe criticism if they were to impose that type of tax upon persons working here and living elsewhere, but exempting themselves from

that tax.

Mr. STUCKEY. Mr. Dellums?

Mr. DELLUMS. Will you succinctly tell me the motivation for putting this resolution before us? I listened carefully to your testimony, but I am trying to get at your motivation for this resolution. Why go through this?

Mr. RARICK. Basically to point out, as Mr. Broyhill said, the hypocrisy of some of our liberal egalitarian friends here in Washington. On the other hand because my people feel most strongly that if they must forcefully submit their children to equal integration in their public schools-a ratio component of attendance based upon race-then certainly those encouraging and supporting such federal action should show their good faith by leading the way. If those who claim to be spokesmen are going to be leaders, then let them lead by example. They should believe in equal justice.

The Supreme Court has dodged equal justice nationwide by talking "defacto" and "dejure". Yet anyone who studies history knows that President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the District of Columbia, in fact, not even the slaves in Maryland.

How then can these areas be held to be "defacto" and not "dejure"! At the time of the Brown decision in 1954 there was a supplemental decision wherein the Supreme Court also struck down laws requiring segregation right here in our Nation's Capital. The Brown case itself involved Kansas segregation laws. So any exclusion from the equal applications of the social justice laws is but a political play on words. I am not suggesting use of force by my resoution. I am saying if the decision makers are to be leaders and they urge forced racial balance in other parts of our country, then let them display the courage to lead the way in our Nation's Capital. Let them make this city truly a democratic showplace of racial balance so people can look to Washington and say they are doing it in Washington, D.C. They are prac ticing what they preach. Let the people say if they can do it there, and those are our leaders, then we can do it here at home. Hypocrites whe do unto others as they would not do unto themselves do not inspire respect or confidence. This is my motivation. If we are to have equal justice, let us be sincere.

Mr. DELLUMS. Can you tell me if there is any jurisdiction in the United States that is required to integrate schools outside a given educational jurisdiction? For example, I come from Berkeley, California where we have an extraordinary integration program. 35 percent of that community is black, 40 percent of each school in that city is integrated.

We never forced anybody to go to Oakland. We never even suggested they go to Oakland for the purpose of integration.

Can you tell me whether there is any place in the country where people cross jurisdictional lines for the purpose of integrating schools! Mr. RARICK. You refer to the force decision in the Hobson-Hansen case. I can't answer your question. I cannot say first-hand that I know of any instance.

But with the new busing edicts requiring fleets of new buses and busdrivers we may need consider hiring a fleet of airplanes, maybe using military bombers to handle integration across jurisdictional lines. Then we could fly our people from Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama, and achieve racial balance in Minnesota, Vermont, South Dakota. Vermont has only 750 Negroes in the whole State. I don't think the law has gone that far yet, but certainly if racial balance in public schools is a national goal then we should not stop at State lines. If it is to be the law then any time there is a higher rate of Ne groes than white by national average the law is violated. But I do not believe the Supreme Court has even dreamed to this extreme. Yet,

anyway.

Interestingly enough under the Genocide Convention, it considered an act of genocide to forcefully transfer the children of one group to another with intent to destroy the identity of that group. Forceful transfer by busing to achieve racial balance can but be intended to destroy the identity of two groups. This is especially suspect since it is massively being carried out primarily in the South.

Mr. DELLUMS. If children end their school day at three o'clock. 12 noon for kindergarten, Federal employees get off from 4:30 to 6:30 in the evening, it would mean we would require some child care facilities in order to take care of the children during that time span. Would you be willing to support a comprehensive child care bill for the entire nation which would include services to the children who would be coming in?

Mr. RARICK. I am here today talking about racial balance in the schools in our Nation's Capital. I am not even talking about taxes. I am trying to get a voluntary agreement with the members that federal officers and employees put their children in public schools in D.C.

If we change the racial composition of the schools in the District, and the problem you discuss handicaps education, we still have school teachers and educational facilities available. The teachers can use the buildings to perform the same services you suggest. I am not a member of the District Committee and I don't know what facilities now exist or are needed for extra parental child care.

Mr. DELLUMS. I would like to make a brief comment. The reason I asked the latter question is this: Obviously to implement this kind of policy certain nuances would exist. I wonder whether you thought it through far enough to make commitments. It is obvious from your answer you have not gone that far.

This is a community of 750,000 people. 73 percent of them are black. I come from a State 2,500 miles away, so some of my statements will be speculation but not far wrong. This community is 73 percent black because there are a lot of people who have left this community because they have not been willing to deal with the serious and critical problems confronting the District as a major urban city. They have walked away from this city not only because of educational factors but because we have not addressed ourselves to other critical issues confronting us. I will not play games with you. I honestly believe your resolution does not address itself to that problem in any way. If we are talking about the quality of life and education of the people in the District then we are talking about spending substantial sums of money to deal with all those critical issues-the questions of mass transit, employment, poverty, hunger, disease, and education in this District so we make the District of Columbia a model city.

But if this Congress was willing to pass a piece of my legislation that I think was called a crime bill which is a violation of constitutional rights, it seems to me we can in fact make Washington, D.C. a model urban city for the entire United States.

You would not deal with that in this kind or resolution in a strange way-a few people having the courage to stand up. You do not address yourself to the quality of life. You address the quality of life by people being courageous enough to deal with critical problems and be willing to stop spending so much money killing people elsewhere in the world and start dealing with the problems of building a community that is worthy of black, brown, red, yellow, and white. Your resolution does not address itself to that issue.

Until we deal with that you are not getting to the real contradiction. We in Congress have all the fringe benefits and amenities that accrue our "stations in life" but if we advocate these ideas to working classes, races in the North and others, it is a radical conspiracy. That is the contradiction and hypocrisy we have to deal with. I don't think your resolution deals with that at all.

If we enhance the quality of life in the District you will not have to pass a resolution for people to come in. One of the tragedies I see in coming from the California educational system is that I see a tremendous commitment to private institutions and not a real commitment to public institutions. I have that commitment. My children are in public

education and I will fight to see this becomes the best educational system in the country because I have a vested interest not only in my own children but other human beings.

You do not deal with those problems in this resolution. If you are willing to join me on the Floor of Congress to fight for more money for education, more money to solve problems of crime, unemployment, poverty, hunger and disease than I would consider you a real civil libertarian, a person concerned about equal justice. We do not have it in this District or in this country until we deal with that.

Your resolution giving a kind of perfunctory approach to dealing with hypocrisy, you are not dealing with real hypocrisy of this coun try. When you do I will join you and we will join hands and say are fighting for equal justice. Your resolution does not do that.

Mr. BROYHILL. This resolution does not require people who reside outside the District to send their children into the District of Colum bia?

Mr. RARICK. No. I earlier said I would have no objection to the Com mittee's amendment to change "and" to "or". But there is no requirement.

Mr. BROYHILL. I have a question about children in Berkeley going to Oakland.

Mr. DELLUMS. I am sorry.

Mr. BROYHILL. It says in the resolution work and reside, work for the Federal Government and reside. I asked a question about those who reside in the District and work for the Federal Government outside.

In your testimony, you did say something about sending children into the District of Columbia, did you not?

Mr. RARICK. I was asked if I knew of such a jurisdiction where there was boundary crossing by compulsion. I know of no such action by

force of law.

This resolution makes any pupil assignment voluntary. It is intended as a good faith commitment by those who espouse racial

balance.

If I had not been here and heard it with my own ears I would not believe the statement I just heard.

Mr. BROYHILL. What is the situation now?

Mr. RARICK. White people have fled for safety to the suburbs, increasing the imbalance in the D.C. schools. The member from Cali fornia said the District is now 73 percent Negro. His suggestion offers no hope for change. Rather to maintain a status quo. The only way Washington, D.C. can ever become a model city is for the racial makeup to be representative of our country. A racial balance of 11 percent colored to 89 percent white, which can be accomplished only by deter mined and positive action by those who helped set in motion the forces which have resulted in racial imbalance.

If those at the helm of our Nation who live and work in the Nation's Capital feel that they have at least a moral commitment to the rest of the American people to make this a model city then we can have s racially balanced federal District to house the government of the United States.

One drives to the suburbs in Virginia and in Maryland and sees only whites. One drives in Washington and it is predominately black. We have become the laughing stock of our own people. We have sur rendered our Nation's Capital to a minority control over the seat of

government. It is time we re-established a semblance of national

their balance.

Mr. STUCKEY. Further questions?

Mr. RARICK. Several educators had indicated a desire to testify in support of H. Con. Res. 172, but were unable to be present on such short notice. I ask that the statement of Dr. Max Rafferty, former Superintendent of Education of the State of California, and now with the Department of Education in Alabama, along with a letter from Dr. R. McIntyre Bridges, President of the Louisiana School Boards Association, be inserted at this point.

Mr. STUCKEY. Thank you.

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. RARICK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The matters referred to by Mr. Rarick follow :)

PUBLIC STATEMENT OF DR. MAX RAFFERTY, FORMER SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, CALIFORNIA, ON H.C.R. 172

The assumption has been made by the courts and by many legislators in this Congress that ethnic balance in a given school situation will in itself produce better education for the pupils enrolled in that school. Whatever the political and sociological implications of forced integration may be, as an educator I can testify that desegregation alone and without other qualifying factors does not, cannot, and will not result in better education for anyone. Integration accompanied by smaller class sizes will lead to improved results. Integration followed by better books, finer teachers, and improved curriculum will bring about superior pupil competence. Integration which brings with it an emphasis on Education in Depth instead of pragmatic permissive Progressive Education will certainly be a vast improvement and a true windfall for children fortunate enough to experience it.

But any change which brings into a school smaller class sizes, better books, finer teachers, improved curriculum, and Education in Depth will produce an immense change for the better insofar as the educational output of that school is concerned. Desegregation in and by itself produces no instructional benefits at all. Neither, incidentally, does segregation. Either condition is simply irrelevant to true education. Justification for mandated ethnic balance in a school must be found outside of education. A school with more interesting books and more inspirational teachers will be a better school than one without, and it doesn't matter in the slightest whether the student body is black, white, brown, yellow, or polka-dotted.

The courts, despite all this, have decreed that ethnic balance shall prevail, and until this interpretation of the Constitution, unknown until our own generation, gives way to another, it is the duty of parents and children, teachers and school boards, to obey the law. My own State of Alabama has done its duty in this respect, and will continue to do so. Members of the two houses of Congress in addition to the judiciary and the Federal bureaucracy, however, have a duty over and beyond that of mere concurrence with the court's decrees. That duty is to set a salutary example from which their constituents may profit. It is this duty to which H.C.R. 172 addresses itself.

Logic as applied to the principle of ethnic balance in the schools is inexorable. Either compulsory desegregation is good for all American school children or it is not. The official governmental assumption must now be that it is. Therefore, to confer its benefits upon their own families, as well as to perform a needed act of leadership which will inspire general compliance with the latest constitutional interpretation on the part of all parents in the land, congressmen and other Federal officers who have supported the principle of ethnic balance should now enroll their children in the mixed public schools of the District of Columbia.

It is common knowledge that such enrollment is not now the case. A regrettably infinitesimal pedcentage of Federal offspring are currently attending the public schools of this city, despite the need to set an example coupled with the undeniable fact that the Washington schools are controlled and financed by the Congress itself. This latter fact should serve as an additional and important reason for legislators and other officials to send their own children to what are, in a very real sense, their own public schools.