[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 24, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E212-E213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          IMPROVING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CHET EDWARDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 4, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3030) to 
     amend the Community Service Block Grant Act to provide for 
     quality improvements:

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further extend my remarks 
from the Debate on H.R. 3030 on February 4 2004. In my remarks on H.R. 
3030, Mr. Boehner and I discussed portions of the 1972 debate 
addressing the 702 exemption of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
The following provides more in-depth explanations of Senator Ervin and 
Senator Allen's comments in 1972 regarding this issue. Please insert 
these comments at the end of my remarks or appropriate place regarding 
this debate.
  I believe it is important to consider the rest of the 1972 
legislative history on the amendment to the 702 exemption of Title VII 
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and to discuss the comments of the lead 
proponents of the 1972 amendment to the 702 exemption of Title VII of 
the Civil Rights Act, Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC) and James Allen (D-AL). 
You will find that these senators rallied support for broadening this 
exemption by citing examples of religious institutions that they said 
did not receive federal financial aid, but were supported by private 
funds. It underscores my point about the difference between 
discrimination with private funds and discrimination with taxpayer 
funds.
  I recommend for the House's consideration an article that will be 
published soon entitled, Religion-based Employment Decisions and 
Federally Funded Jobs: Congressional Debate, Law and Policy, written by 
Melissa Rogers, Visiting Professor of Religion and Public Policy at 
Wake Forest University. Rogers is former executive director of the Pew 
Forum on Religion and Public Life and former general counsel of the 
Baptist Joint Committee, and she has spent a lot of time working on 
this issue.
  Rogers writes: ``It is true . . . that [Senators Ervin and Allen, the 
prime proponents of the 1972 amendment to the 702 exemption of Title 
VII] considered an institution-wide exemption for religious 
organizations from Title VII to be crucial to religious autonomy and 
freedom. It is often recalled, for example, that Senator Ervin 
repeatedly said that his amendment was designed `to take the political 
hands of Caesar off of the institutions of God, where they have no 
place to be.'
  ``But what has not been recalled,'' Rogers notes, ``is that, in his 
argument for allowing religious organizations to make religion-based 
employment decisions institution-wide, Senator Ervin repeatedly used an 
example of a religious institution from his home state that, as he 
stressed, `[was] not supported in any respect by the Federal 
Government,' but by religious adherents.''
  Specifically, Senator Ervin said the following:

       ``We have a college in North Carolina known as Davidson 
     College that is affiliated with the Southern Presbyterian 
     Church. Davidson College is supported by the fees of its 
     students and by the voluntary contributions of people 
     interested in its activities. It is not supported in any 
     respect by the Federal Government . . .
       This college was founded and is controlled by people who 
     believe in giving a Christian education to the students of 
     the institution . . . [It has] a regulation, which says that 
     any person who is chosen to be a full professor at the 
     institution shall be a member of an Evangelical Christian 
     Church . . .''

  Senator Ervin then asked Senator Allen, his colleague and supporter: 
Is there ``anything immoral or ought [there] to be anything illegal in 
people who support a college devoted to giving a Christian education 
taking steps to assure that the youth who attend it should be 
instructed on any subject, whether religious or nonreligious, by 
teachers who are members of a Christian church?'' And, in response to a 
question later in the debate, Ervin emphasized again that Davidson 
College was ``supported by fees of the students and voluntary gifts of 
people who believe in giving the kind of education this institution 
gives.''
  Senator Allen echoed this argument in his own statements. He 
commented: ``Under our system of religious freedom, which would be 
violated by this EEOC bill, religious organizations have seen fit to 
use their own resources to establish church schools at every level of 
education--elementary, secondary, and institutions of higher education. 
They did so because they wanted youth taught in a religious atmosphere 
and by Christian instructors.'' Senator Allen also quoted Senator Ervin 
stating: `` `[I]f the members of the Presbyterian Church, or the 
members of the Catholic

[[Page E213]]

Church, or the members of the Lutheran Church, or the members of any 
other religious body see fit to establish, through their own resources, 
an institution of learning for the instruction of youth, and they want 
the youth of that institution to be taught by persons they regard as 
Christian professors, even in nonreligious subjects such as mathematics 
or trigonometry or philosophy, they should have the unqualified right 
to do that.' ''
  Accordingly, Professor Rogers concludes: ``The 1972 legislative 
history reveals that the lead sponsors of the 702 amendment rallied 
support for their amendments by offering examples of religious 
institutions that they said did not receive government financial aid, 
but were supported with private funds. Far from supporting [religious 
discrimination in publicly funded jobs], this evidence cuts directly 
against it. Thus, any suggestion that the 1972 legislative history 
offers support for allowing religious organizations to make religion-
based employment decisions with regard to government-funded positions 
is simply incorrect.''
  So, if those most interested in this amendment to the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act would go back and look at the debate, he or she would find 
that Senators Ervin and Allen were rallying support for broadening the 
702 exemption by referring to religious institutions that they said 
were supported with private money.
  But we are not talking about those kinds of situations today. 
Instead, we are talking about the people's money, the American tax 
dollar, and I think there is a huge difference there.

                          ____________________