limited the use of busing for integration to local option. In other words, the local school board had to conform to the State provisions. I signed that bill.

That bill was then held unconstitutional by the courts as not being in accordance with the interpretation of the Federal Constitution. A similar bill was passed the next year and because it was unconstitutional I vetoed it.

But I am very aware of the tremendous trauma that is caused by the subject both in white and black communities. I think that we are in a transition period. I think that it has been very useful in some areas and has caused tremendous hardship in others and therefore I would think that we have to handle this with great discretion, great delicacy as far as the Nation is concerned.

Senator ALLEN. But on the matter of forced busing for racial balance you would have no difficulty going along with the President's views on that?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think that I would conform. I don't think that I-the answer is yes I would conform to his political position, if that is his position. I have not talked to him about the issue.

Senator ALLEN. Again, in your statement-I think I understood correctly-when you said there in New York you had sought to maximize integration. I believe the record will show that far from maximizing integration there is actually more segregation in New York than there was several years ago. I mean segregation, according to reports of the school board, has been increasing in New York rather than decreasing.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That's correct.

Senator ALLEN. So actually there hasn't been much maximizing of integration.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. We sought to and that was the policy of the Board of Regents which established the policy. We have an independent Board of Regents and they establish the policy separate from the Governor and the difficulty is that under the present provisions of the law you cannot bus children from the city across city lines to county lines so that when you have large areas of black population in the city and a large area of white population adjoining in a county, under the present law they're not allowed to bus them back and forth across the line.

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to integrate them in the city because you may have a whole borough that is almost solidly black.

Now we ran into a very interesting situation where I had visitations from the leaders of the Harlem community saying they didn't want integration. They wanted to have an all black school in Harlem. They wanted to have the identity of community and so forth. So we got a very complex series of crosscurrents plus the living habits which means we have huge areas of solid black communities so that to get integration is virtually impossible in those city areas adjacent to white counties, suburban areas.

Senator ALLEN. It looks like then by State law you have fixed it to where you can't have a great deal of integration there.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. In those areas, you are correct, sir.
Senator ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Don't you feel though that we ought to have a uniform policy for desegregating the public schools in the country? Is it right and fair in my section of the country down South to require busing of students from one end of the city to another and from one end of the county to another to achieve a racial balance where that's not done in other sections of the country and I might even say particularly in New York and the other large cities of the country. Is that fair?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Seems like a lot of logic to your position.

Senator ALLEN. So do you feel we ought to have a uniform policy? In other words, what's good for one section of the country ought to be good for another. Would you go along with that view on a uniform national policy?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, the uniform national policy may be more difficult than local home rule option. In other words, what our legislature was striking for was trying to allow a community to determine whether they wanted it or not. Some communities do want it and it has been very successful in many areas.

And I think I went to an integrated school myself, and I think it has very real value, providing the quality of education is preserved. But a quality education and this other question, preparation for life— of course, we had a very interesting experience where we had integration in our colleges, State university, and integration of dormitories, but the black students don't want to be in integrated dormitories. They want to be in black dormitories.

Senator ALLEN. That's the situation we have in many cases down South. But despite the wishes of the black communities they are forced to bus their students in order to achieve a racial balance.

Now if that's required in one section of the country it is not illogical that it be required throughout the country, is it, or visa versa?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I accept what you say. I accept what you say. Senator ALLEN. The other subject that I wanted to cover was your attitude about voluntary prayers in public schools.

What is your attitude on that?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I believe in prayer. And when I took office there were prayers in the public schools of our State. The Supreme Court decision then declared those illegal and so they were terminated. Senator ALLEN. Haven't you at one time advocated a constitutional amendment that would permit voluntary prayers in public buildings, public schools?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I don't know as I advocated an amendment. As I said, I believe in it. I don't think I have advocated an amendment. Senator ALLEN. I notice on page 264 of this book prepared by the Library of Congress, in 1964, he-referring to you-did state his position in greater detail supporting a constitutional amendment providing for prayer in the public schools under certain conditions.

I believe you listed conditions which were not repugnant to me. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. May I have the opportunity of looking that

up

Senator ALLEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER [continuing]. And finding out?

Senator ALLEN. And perhaps you can respond when I have an opportunity to question you. My time is up.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

(Information on this point, subsequently supplied to the Committee by Mr. Rockefeller, is as follows:)

In July, 1962, at the National Governor's Conference, I abstained from voting on a resolution calling for a Constitutional amendment to permit prayer in public schools and issued the following statement:

"Our nation has been built upon the basic concept of human dignity and the worth of every individual. This concept is based upon our Judeo-Christian tradition of the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God.

"Fundamental to our society and a keystone of our liberties is freedom of religion-the freedom of every person to worship or not worship as his own conscience dictates. This is a priceless heritage.

"I am deeply concerned that the moral precepts which have guided our forefathers and ourselves be communicated to our young people and the recent decision of the Supreme Court regarding State-sponsored prayers in public schools raises important questions in this respect.

"In the light of the Supreme Court's decision, I urge the fullest study of the decision. Until this has been done and until the whole question can be considered in terms of the fundamental precept of freedom of religion which was the basis of the constitutional provision upon which the Supreme Court based its opinion, I shall abstain from the endorsement of any hasty action by the Governors relating to amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Any such proposal should certainly have the fullest possible study and discussion before the Governors offer an opinion."

In July 1963 at The National Governor's Conference, I voted in favor of a similar resolution. In doing so, I, of course, anticipated and assumed there would be the extensive Congressional hearings which I refer to above before any Congressional action is taken.

In February, 1964, at a news conference in Medford, Connecticut, I answered a question on this subject as follows:

Question. "And in view of the action of many State Boards of Education and the local courts rebelling against the Supreme Court decision of taking prayers and Bible studies out of the public schools, what is your opinion in regard to the Supreme Court decision, and are you in favor of prayers and Bible studies in public schools?"

Governor Rockefeller.-"Yes. What I think should be done is that Congress should hold hearings on this subject so that the American people can effectively express, in a tangible way, their concern and feeling about this subject, then, out of those hearings I feel confident that an amendment could be developed which would permit, on the basis of free choice, prayers and Bible studies in the schools."

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cook.

Senator Cook. I would like to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for one remark.

Senator HUGH SCOTT. I must leave now to attend a meeting of the Smithsonian's Board of Regents. I appreciate the courtesy of Senator Cook.

I would simply offer a letter, which will be made available to members of the committee, which is addressed to Senator Warren Magnuson in which I endorse the concept of long range funding of public broadcasting and I will read all of the relevant part:

Public Broadcasting has done an outstanding job in the past of providing needed quality programing. The gavel to gavel coverage of this week's hearings on the Rockefeller Nomination of the Senate Rules Committee is an excellent example of Public Broadcasting's fine efforts. This underscores the failure of the three commercial networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) to provide a needed public service. Public Broadcasting is to be commended for its foresight in seeing the importance of the Rockefeller Nomination Hearings to the American public. Yesterday Senator Cook and I decried the networks' judgment in failing to have live coverage, and Senator Cannon echoed our feelings this morning in his remarks. If Public Broadcasting is to continue its fine programming and key special

news coverage like the Rockefeller Nomination Hearings, it must be assured long range government support.

Please advise me if I can help supply any further information or background on the value of Public Broadcasting.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to share with my colleagues three editorials dealing with the Rockefeller nomination.

The first, appearing in Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer takes the House Judiciary Committee to task for its procrastination on the Rockefeller nomination. It backs up an earlier statement I made on the Senate floor, criticizing the inaction of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino, particularly in view of the fact that the committee acted so expeditiously and admirably during the impeachment inquiry.

The second, appearing in the Pittsburgh Press, urges Governor Rockefeller to make a full disclosure of his finances.

I want to commend him for his candor and openness in doing so. The third editorial, appearing in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, makes a statement we should all consider carefully:

Neither wealth or poverty has relevance to anyone's fitness for public office. That makes a very strong case for the fact there is perhaps too much obsession with the question of affluence. Probably we ought to get back to the question of competency, and certainly the Governor is as well qualified as anybody in the United States.

I ask unanimous consent that these three editorials be printed in the hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letter and the editorials will be made a part of the record.

[The letter and the editorials referred to above follow:]

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, D.C., September 24, 1974.

Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Related Agencies, 1108 New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand your Subcommittee is in the process of reviewing the proposal for long range funding of Public Broadcasting. I was delighted to see the concept endorsed recently by Senator Pastore's Communications Subcommittee.

Public Broadcasting has done an outstanding job in the past of providing needed quality programming. The gavel-to-gavel coverage of this week's hearings on the Rockefeller Nomination of the Senate Rules Committee is an excellent example of Public Broadcasting's fine efforts. This underscores the failure of the three commercial networks (NBC, ABC, and CBS) to provide a needed public service. Public Broadcasting is to be commended for its foresight in seeing the importance of the Rockefeller Nomination Hearings to the American public. Yesterday Senator Cook and I decried the networks' judgment in failing to have live coverage, and Senator Cannon echoed our feelings this morning in his remarks.

If Public Broadcasting is to continue its fine programming and key special news coverage like the Rockefeller Nomination Hearings, it must be assured long range government support. The five-year funding proposal before your Subcommittee seems to meet these demands for help in a fair manner.

Please advise me if I can help supply any further information or background on the value of Public Broadcasting.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

HUGH SCOTT,

U.S. Senator.

[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Sept. 20, 1974]

CRACK THE WHIP, MR. RODINO

It would be a most unfortunate switch, and a totally inexcusable one, if the House Judiciary Committee that discharged its responsibilities so admirably in the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Nixon were to subject the confirmation hearings for Nelson Rockefeller to unreasonable delay.

That is the bleak prospect now. When the vice-presidential nominee went to Capitol Hill this week to meet informally with congressional leaders he was told by Rep. Don Edwards there is "no chance" of the House acting on confirmation before the November elections and "I'd say more likely late November." The Democratic congressman from California is chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee drawing up rules of procedure for the committee's hearings. He said the hearings could not be completed before the elections because "we couldn't do a good job in that amount of time."

We don't buy that. President Ford announced Aug. 20 that Mr. Rockefeller was his choice for Vice President. When Mr. Ford was nominated for Vice President by President Nixon last year both the House and Senate confirmed him in less than two months.

The unconscionable delay has all the earmarks of a deliberate attempt by the Democratic majority to immobilize Mr. Rockefeller during the election campaign. With hearings incompleted and confirmation votes pending, he would be effectively silenced insofar as taking an active role in behalf of congressional candidates.

Far more important, the office of Vice President should not be left vacant so long a time. It was precisely to prevent such a situation that the Constitution was amended to provide for prompt filling of vacancies.

The House Judiciary Committee, which was a vigorous and persuasive defender of the Constitution in the impeachment hearings, should not place partisan politics before constitutional responsibilities in dealing with the nomination of Mr. Rockefeller.

Committee Chairman Peter W. Rodino, who exercised tight control over the impeachment proceedings, should inform Congressman Edwards that no further delay will be tolerated and that hearings must proceed on a schedule that will permit a House vote on confirmation in October.

[From the Pittsburgh Press, Sept. 15, 1974]

ROCKEFELLER FINANCES

The U.S. Senate Rules Committee has asked Nelson A. Rockefeller to make a full public disclosure of his finances before it opens hearings Sept. 23 on his nomination as vice president.

This is a proper request, and Mr. Rockefeller has indicated he will comply with it.

By disclosing his financial holdings, Mr. Rockefeller will make it possible for the public to study his actions with an eye for possible conflict of interest. It will also serve to protect him from suspicion of acting in financial self-interest. The committee correctly did not require that Mr. Rockefeller divest himself of holdings or place some of them in a blind trust.

If a man as wealthy as Mr. Rockefeller suddenly had to sell his stocks, it could unsettle the market. It also would be grossly unfair to force him to liquidate his holdings now when the stock market is at a 12-year low.

As to blind trusts, they are better in theory than practice. For instance, it was hard to believe when President Johnson put his holdings in a blind trust in charge of his closest financial crony, that he was insulating himself from knowing what the trust was up to. Nor would it work any better in Mr. Rockefeller's case.

In another matter involving Mr. Rockefeller, the House Judiciary Committee seems to be dragging its feet in scheduling confirmation hearings.

Republicans suspect the Democratic-controlled committee wants to delay Mr. Rockefeller's confirmation until after the November election, so that he will be unable to stump for the GOP.