Transcript for What Joe Biden said about school busing amendment in 1977
The net effect is that there are will be fewer children. Reassigned schools. Ostensibly because. Findings by EGW Department of Education welfare but there's an imbalance in their school system. Misnomer that most people haven't they think most children that are being called bus are being bused to constitute as a consequence the court orders and that's just not true. There are more children on buses. As a consequence of eight GW's threats to withhold funds. To a school district unless they and there are as a consequence the court order. And it and that's why I think that that senator broke with justifiably concerned about him if you were proponent of busing. You should be worried about. Quote victory because it as. A much broader effect than most people think it had. Or. And court. It. More court ordered. I. I think not because this so called Byrd amendment which was an outgrowth of the so called Hyde amendment. Stood for almost two years about one challenge to it. And then on May 25 the attorney general of the United States of America wrote an opinion saying that it didn't have any effect. But everyone thought it had the effect and it stopped HEW from being involved in. Threatening to withhold funds they didn't do that anymore for the past two years in knowing challenge that not that I'm aware. On at least there was no court that ordered busing as a consequence of any challenge so the I think that is you know. That's a re hearing it's just not the case at least it wasn't for the past eighteen months to years I don't think it should be left to any bureaucrat any agency including even if a word the Justice Department which is the legal arm of the executive branch to make a determination the constitutional violation exists. Without having to make that judgment and go through a court to get that determination. You think president made by GW where no grievance seasons. I don't know I you know it depends on who will who says his agreements HEW they're very there's agreements someone complains or HEW administrator goes in and says. We think there's an imbalance or we think HEW. Thinks that there's a constitutional violation. All I'm saying is off Tom Eagleton said senator Eagleton said was HE WS no power to. And that is a power that should not be given to a bureaucratic gates we have courts there the district court any individual. Any school district any group of people can go into a federal district court and say we believe there's a constitutional violation the court decide. Are you infinity ego thing the court to Delaware. Hillary. Should be laughing. You would never vote for the game favorite goes do. Yes that is correct if they decided under the present ruling the Supreme Court which says the most recent ruling as a yes they would says there must be finding of signatory intent to discriminate. Very good. Or surety but that's for the course of the site is in. Network that's the whole issue the court. Yesterday if you I still oppose it yes because it is not in line with. The highest court in the lands ruling. A district court would be abusing their discretion if they did not find in my opinion clearly now under that. Under the cases of yesterday the last day in an opinion say. We specifically far too with the specifics angered Torre intent on the part of XYZ. To preclude. Blacks or Spanish speaking Americans or whomever from attending. This school therefore their constitutional rights were violated look folks we keep talking about this thing is being north vs south that's not the issue. It is rural vs urban and most of the Boston is taking place today is taking place in rural areas whether it be administratively ordered or court order. Now we're moving into applying the same standards to urban areas and is a standard that doesn't make sense it doesn't apply it doesn't hold. We're moving from trying to in this in in in urban areas we've had its integrated facilities but segregated neighborhoods. In an rural Ares we've traditionally had integrated neighborhood that segregated facilities. And to apply the same standard the same test for this north south thing is not really the issue. As professor Nathan Glazer at Harvard is indicated as doctor. Armored Rand Corp. James Coleman it. I just tell three days a year into today's hearings in Judiciary Committee and another bill life beyond this deal is bus. And there a uniform opinion of those testified that it is not a north south it's an urban rural question distinction. But you're everywhere your intent there're going to be. Segregated saying it. The question race you sat back movement. Desegregation and school when humans. Anyway answer that is I predict that the young black leadership of America will overwhelming to decide with me. I predict that in 1980. And 84 in my position will be totally vindicated by the sociologist and buys Civil Rights Act not come from that side of the track. That's where I'm from I was a defense lawyer I am a civil rights cases I sat in on route forty I mean not you know I'm not an a from the other side of this. And I happen to think that the one way to be ensure that you sent to civil rights movement in America further back is to continue to push bossy. Because it's a bankrupt policy. And that's that's that's that that's why I think will be vindicated I don't I don't include myself with pro or anti busing fourth I think the only group that can determine. Whether or not a constitutional violation existed the federal courts the United States America no one else has that right secondly. A federal court the United States American determining a violation. Of the constitution with regard school desegregation cases must find. That there is a specific intent to segregate before they can order bus. That I abide by that I legislate by that I hold up. And there's there the standards we should prepare to who. It's difficult to establish intent but it's clearly possible factually can be established the court has the Supreme Court 820. Eight to zero ruled yesterday that they must find. And you very well knows this carpet covering this area's long as you have that. There is there aren't legal standards by which you bring in burdens of proof to establish whether or not there was a specific intent. And a court confined.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.