The Catholic University of America

February 8th, 1964

Debate on Title VII Religious Exemption

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 2585

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PURCELL

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. PURCELL: Page 70, line 4, insert " (1) " immediately following "title," and immediately before the period in line 10 on page 70 insert the follow­ing: ", and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion".

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being offered to provide protection to the organized religious groups in this country from action by the Federal Government under the provisions of title VII of this bill. I am sure that it is not the intention of those who are supporting this bill to subject religious organizations or church groups to a requirement of hiring employees from outside their particular faith or belief. Evidence of the effort to protect these groups is found in the language of section 703. This section, as you will recall, exempted any "religious corporations, associations, and societies." Again, in section 704, the lan­guage indicates an intent to protect church-related organizations, when they have jobs involving a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably to a normal operation." In my study of the bill, I that generally the church-affiliated schools and colleges are not protected by these two attempts to exempt them. Almost without exception, the term "religious corporation" would not in church-affiliated schools unless this definition should receive the most liberal possible interpretation by the courts. Actually most church-related schools are chartered under the general corporation statutes as nonprofit institutions for the purpose of education. The same problem exists in section 704(e) as it now reads. A church-affiliated school could probably easily defend the choice of a professor of religion, a professor of philosophy, or even a professor in the social science department, on the basis of religious background and church membership. I believe, however, that a court could easily choose to interpret this law in such a way that the failure of a church-affiliated school to hire an atheist for the job of chemistry professor could subject that school to legal action. It might be equally difficult to prove that a specific religious background would be a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary," in the hiring of a dean of students, or a director of a dormitory, or even the su­pervisor of library materials. The church-affiliated schools should have the right to hire employees on the basis of religion if they choose to do so. Should there be any doubt that these church-related schools come under this bill as "affecting commerce," I would like to call your attention to the fact that these schools: First, sell research projects to both the U.S. Government and private enterprise; second, they sell radio and TV rights to their athletic contests; third, they sell pamphlets. books, and text materials; and, fourth some of them own stocks and govern­ment bonds. The National Labor Relations Board has found several times that colleges qualify under the commerce clause as "affecting commerce." There may be some who feel that it would be an unwise policy for a church ­affiliated school to restrict itself only to members of its own church for its em­ployees, but certainly it should be their right to do so. Failure to specifically exempt church­ affiliated schools could subject them to legal action that should never have to happen. The church-related school should never be called upon to defend itself for failure to hire an atheist or a member of a different faith. Also the school should not be called upon to prove in a legal action that it is protected by a provision of this bill. It should be so spelled out that there is no question of their right to hire employees on the basis of religion. Failure to be sure that church schools are exempt would be failure to continue the recognized policy of keeping churches and church activities free from Federal controls. Failure to provide specifically for the exemption of church schools as given in my amendment would be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. I earnestly request your support for this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the this gentleman from Texas has expired.

(By unanimous consent, at the request of Mr. EDMONDSON, Mr. PURCELL was granted permission to proceed for 2 ad­ditional minutes.)

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PURCELL. I yield to the gentle­man from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Will the gentle­man tell us, is this designed to be con­fined entirely to schools that have a mis­sion to propagate a religious faith? Do I understand that part of the gentle­man's amendment correctly?

Mr. PURCELL. This amendment would be limited to church affiliated col­leges and universities, part of whose

2586 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE

mission, I am sure, is to propagate the belief of the denomination that is supporting that educational institution; yes, sir.

Mr. EDMONDSON. If I understand the exemption correctly, it would apply only to selections which they make of personnel on the basis of religion; is that correct?

Mr. PURCELL. It would be only on the basis of religion. It does not touch color, race, or country of origin, or any other aspect.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gen­tleman, and will support the amend­ment.

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PURCELL. I yield to the gentle­man.

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment and wholeheartedly hope that the amend­ment will be adopted. Religious insti­tutions should not be subjected to domi­nation or control of the Equal Employ­ment Commission or any governmental body in connection with the hiring of faculty members or any employees or in any way interfere with the policies of the religious organization. There should be complete separation of church and state.

Mr. PURCELL. I thank the gentle­man.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PUR­CELL] would broaden the exemption of section 704 (a) which provides that where religion or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification and reasonably necessary to the normal operation of a particular business or enterprise, the provisions of title VII shall not apply. Section 704(e) seems clearly to exempt teaching and administrative positions in religious, educational institutions, and the amendment therefore is unneces­sary with respect to these classifications. However, insofar as the gentleman's amendment would also exempt non-ad­ministrative and non-teaching personnel, the amendment goes too far. Now we cannot object to any bona fide occupational qualifications for positions like professors, teachers, experts, re­search assistants, registrars, deans, or di­rectors of dormitories. We exempt them under the present wording of the stat­ute, but the gentleman goes further, and he would exempt non-administrative and non-teaching personnel and practi­cally all personnel or employees of a par­ticular organization.

He would exempt, for example, jani­tors. He would exempt laborers. For that reason-because it would go too far-and for the further reason that the wording the provision in the bill is ample for the purposes, I feel I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­man from Ohio.

Mr. McCULLOCH. The chairman has carefully and accurately analyzed the legislation as is and he has carefully and accurately analyzed the amendment. I am of the opinion that it is not within the intent, the spirit, and the purpose of the legislation as written and as understood by an overwhelming majority of the House to change that concept. In my opinion, the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. HARRIS. As an example, let us suppose that Ouachita Baptist College in my district received an application from a person who happened to be an atheist for a position of janitor. Suppose that the college determined it would not be a proper employee. Suppose he made a complaint. Would the Commission then have authority to investigate and take action?

Mr. CELLER. Religion is not, and should not, be a qualification for the job of janitor.

Mr. HARRIS. The gentleman said a moment ago that subsection (e) was applicable insofar as the exclusion is concerned, with reference to teaching.

Mr. CELLER. As to teaching, yes; and as to administrative positions, yes; but when it comes to non-teaching and non-administrative positions, for ordinary laborers, there should not be an exemp­tion.

Mr. HARRIS. Then an atheist could be forced upon this particular college?

Mr. CELLER. Not necessarily. It would depend on all the circumstances.

Mr. HARRIS. But the Commission would have authority to determine whether it would come within the statute?

Mr. CELLER. That would be for the courts and the Commission. That ex­ample goes a little too far.

Mr. HARRIS. Perhaps so, but I am trying to get an understanding.

Mr. CELLER. I wish to make this clear. Certainly with respect to bona fide occupational qualifications involved in teaching and involved in the adminis­tration of a college that is covered by the title, and which may be denominational, the act shall not apply. However, with respect to non-teaching and non-admin­istrative positions, the ordinary laborers and the ordinary janitors, I believe the act should apply. That is what we intended.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. (By unanimous consent Mr. CELLER (at the request of Mr. HARRIS) was given permission to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle­man from Arkansas.

Mr. HARRIS. I used an example of my own denomination. It could have been Catholic University or any other religious school. A person who did not have a professed belief in God, then, could go to an insti­tution, could apply for a laborer's job or for a janitor's job, if that were a position, and, if turned down, would have a right to go to the Commission?

Mr. CELLER. If the institution was not a "religious corporation or society," you would be correct.

Mr. HARRIS. And the Commission would have a right to say to the institution, "You have to give consideration to this man's employment."

Mr. CELLER. Yes. They would have to give consideration to it.

Mr. HARRIS. They Would?

Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. HARRIS. The amendment ought to be adopted, then.

Mr. CELLER. I believe the amend­ment should not be adopted. The gen­tleman has given a very isolated case which probably would not arise.

Mr. HARRIS. Let me give another illustration. Suppose a man applied as a coach of the football team. Would that be included?

Mr. CELLER. That might be in the nature of an administrative qualifica­tion, for a football coach.

Mr. HARRIS. It might be?

Mr. CELLER. It might be.

Mr. HARRIS. But it might not be?

Mr. CELLER. I believe it likely would be. I believe it would be administrative.

Mr. HARRIS. We are getting into a very dangerous area, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CELLER. All of these cases might be in a dangerous area, and they would have to be tested in the courts, eventually. All new legislation presents diffi­culties.

Mr. POFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take time on this. I have not spoken often today, but I think the gentleman from Texas offered an amendment which deserves very careful scrutiny before this House acts precipitously. Let us ponder for just a moment why the authors of this bill considered it wise to grant any exception under the FEPC title to those institutions which might for one reason or another prefer to employ people who profess a particular religion. Was it not because they realized that the heads of the institutions were concerned that the employees who came in daily contact with the students enrolled in those institutions might influence those Students? And who can say what employee will influence the impressionable mind of a student and what employee will not? If you will pardon the personal allusion, the best friend I had among the employees of the college I was privileged to attend was not the professor of political science but the janitor. And that old gentleman had a very great impact upon the formulation of many of the convictions which I hold dear today. I say that we should not tamper with the freedom of any religious body in the operation of any of its institutions to propagate its religious beliefs by meddling with the employment policies it pursues. Accordingly, I most earnestly, I most earnestly hope that we will not for the sake of expedition or dispatch, about which we have heard so much, lightly disregard and cast aside the import of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 2587

Mr. MCCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the. requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that it is necessary to oppose the gentleman from Virginia, my colleague, on so many occasions. I repeat what I said with respect to the chairman's statement. My conclusion was not hastily arrived at. The bill as drafted exempts all administrative personnel in these religious institutions. I ask the­ members of this committee why should the janitors of an institution be discriminated against in seeking employment on the ground that they were going to influence students in these educational institutions? If we adopt this amendment, we may well be building in the bill a legal discrimination which we have worked so long to eliminate. In my opinion, the amendment is not needed and will not serve the purpose intended by an overwhelming majority of this House.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a question?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gentleman for a question.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to ask the gentleman this question: Let us suppose a situation of a church-related college where the religious organizations of the church make contributions of one sort or another to the support of that college. Then do I understand that a man who is a professed atheist can be hired as the janitor at such a college and that the good people of that church can be made to support him?

Mr. McCULLOCH. This bill will have nothing to do with the logical reasons of hiring or failing to hire anyone. No chief of personnel of any religious educational institution needs to hire any atheist, if that be a logical reason for not hiring employees there. We are talk­ing about discrimination by reason of color.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No. We are talk­ing about discrimination by reason of conviction.

Mr. McCULLOCH. And religion.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Will the gentle­man yield?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Ohio that he has exactly expressed the views of those who originally wrote this legislation. In section 703 we clearly exempt all religious corporations as such, definitely and properly, and then on page 70, beginning at line 4 we again do just what the gentleman said which is, wherever there is a proper bona fide reason, be­cause of the occupational qualification, there can be no question that the people would be exempt and need to be exempt.

Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have for the past few days sat on this side of the aisle and consistently supported the committee in their opposition to the many amend­ments which have been offered to this bill. However, on this particular amendment I must desert their cause, because I do not believe it is just. The gentleman from Texas is a very sincere and able colleague of ours. It was not his intention in any way to deprive us of ­the full effect and intention of this bill which was to protect and to assure our colored friends their just rights. This goes to something I think would touch almost every Member here because surely they have a denominational school in their district. I am not so sure, as has been stated here, that the exclusion of that section 703 does apply. I am not so positive of that. First of all most of these schools are religious, nonprofit corporations. Secondly, we have no assurance that church-related college or university is a religious corporation. Then, too, I think you have to understand the atmosphere of a college campus if that college or university is denominational. I attended a denominational college. I serve on the board of trustees of a denominational college. I lived on the campus of a denominational college. That college insists not only that its administrators, not only its teachers and professors adhere to its religious beliefs, but insists that the janitors and everyone else who is employed by that school to adhere to those beliefs. That college should have the right to compel the individuals it employs to adhere to its beliefs, for that college exists to propagate and to extend to the people with whom it has influence its convictions and beliefs. To force such a college to hire an "outsider" would dilute if not destroy its effect and thus its very purpose for existence. There are five such schools in my particular district and each of them fits this category. You have to understand the total atmosphere of these college campuses in order to understand what this gentleman is attempting to do. To force them to hire those outside their own beliefs destroys the total influence of those colleges. Surely the membership of this House does not want that. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I think it is a good amendment and should be adopted.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. Mr. Chair man, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to direct a question to the gentleman from California [Mr. ROOSEVELT]. The district I am privileged to represent has probably the largest church-supported orphans' home in the United States. As a matter of fairness, the house mothers for those orphans are widows of preachers of the same faith and, insofar as possible, retired ministers make up most of the other personnel. My question is this: Is that home completely exempt? Can they employ people of their own faith in all positions in the orphans' home?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. May I ask a question? Is the organization to which the gentleman refers wholly owned by this religious order?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. Yes, it is.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Unquestionably it would be exempt under section 703.

Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. GILL. Is it an educational institution?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. It is an orphans' home. They operate a school in connection with it, but they also operate a very large experimental farm to take care of the orphans of the faith of this group of people. In light of the problems raised, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL] has offered an amendment that should be approved by this body, and if there is any doubt, certainly it should be approved.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I would agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly on the last statement he made because of the difference that appears to prevail in the leadership of the committee on this question. Very definitely, the gentle­man from California and the gentleman from Hawaii too have given a different answer on this point than the answer that was given by the very distinguished and able chairman of the committee. Unless the chairman of the committee modifies his views as he has given them to this committee, it seems to me the only safe course to follow to assure fair action to these religious institutions such as the gentleman has described is to adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the RECORD to show that I sup­ported the previous amendment that gave all women of this Nation equal rights. As a member of the Judiciary Committee for 19 years, I have supported equal rights for women all that time. I want the RECORD to show also I am sup­porting this amendment because I have far too many religious orders in my dis­trict to take any chances. I have many splendid Catholic colleges, schools and orders. Why I have the famous and God-fearing order of the Trappist Monks, Baptist colleges, Presbyterian colleges, even some fine Mormons. All of these good people have the right under the first amendment to follow the religion of their own choice. My colleagues-insomuch s there is much doubt in the hearts and minds of many of us-let us vote for the Purcell amendment. We absolutely can­ not take any chances-there is far too much at stake. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment both the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL] and the able gentleman from Texas [Mr. ROBERTS] for their great fight to remove any doubts about religious freedom in this Nation.

Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 2588

Mr. GILL. Can the gentleman tell me whether he believes a large institution of better higher education which is receiving a substantial amount of Federal funds, which happened to be connected with one denomination or another, should be allowed to prohibit the hiring of all other members of that institution?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I certainly do. I believe any religious institution should select any employee of any faith desired.

Mr. GILL. Including the use of Federal funds?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. There are no Federal funds involved. The gentleman is adding a condition that does not exist. There are no Federal funds involved in this orphans' home.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WRIGHT. Since there seems to be some doubt, if the authors of the bill believe it is the intent of the bill to exempt such institutions in the employment of people on their faculty and simi­lar jobs, if they believe that, spelling that out as the gentleman from what pos­sible harm can there be in Texas does in this amendment of his?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. HARRIS. I want to ask a ques­tion of the distinguished gentleman from California as to whether or not there is any difference between a religious cor­poration and an educational institution that is supported by a denomination?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. It depends on the individual case. You will have many institutions which do not even come under the commerce clause, and they have to come under the commerce clause in order to be eligible at all under the act. Secondly, there are other institutions which would, and I think it would depend somewhat on the degree of operations by the individual university or col­lege, like Catholic University.

Mr. HARRIS. Is the Catholic Uni­versity a religious corporation?

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I do not know. I think it is owned by one of the orders of the Catholic Church.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. (On request of Mr. POAGE, and by unanimous consent, Mr. ROBERTS of Texas was allowed to proceed for 5 addi­tional minutes.)

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question to the gentleman from California again?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield.

Mr. HARRIS. The distinguished gen­tleman from New York, the eminent and very able chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I think answered forth­rightly a moment ago what I deem to be the correct interpretation of this act applicable to this particular problem. The distinguished gentleman from Cal­ifornia seems to rely on the exemptions in section 703. I find no place where there is any distinction between what the gentleman refers to as a religious corporation and an educational institution conducted as such by a religious organization. From the gentleman's response a moment ago, I simply do not believe the distinguished gentleman from California can give the committee the correct answer to the question as to whether or not it would be applicable.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Will the gentleman yield so that I can have a try at it?

Mr. HARRIS. I would like to have that information from the gentleman if he can give it.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I can only tell the gentleman what the purpose of the committee was. Let me give an example. Suppose you have a religious corporation. My son happens to go to one of them, which is wholly owned and operated for the purposes of that religious corporation. It is not open to outside students. It is run only for the purposes of that religious corporation. Suppose, however, we take the case of Catholic University.

Mr. HARRIS. That is all right with me, because I used the example of Ouachita Baptist College, in my district, in my earlier remarks.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Here is a university that is~ not run only for the par­ticular order that owns it, it is an insti­tution operated for general purposes. It would be correct to say, I believe, that it is operated for religious purposes only in the case of religious courses, or some­thing of that kind. There, I think, they would have the right to demand that re­ligion play a part. They would not want anybody not related to that religious purpose.

Mr. HARRIS. Then I would say to the gentleman that the chairman of this committee is correct when he says it would be applicable to an educational institution supported by a particular de­nomination, and the gentleman's inter­pretation of section 703 is narrowly lim­ited to that particular religious corpora­tion which promotes only the beliefs of that organization.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I think the gentle­man from New York and I are in com­plete accord on it.

Mr. HARRIS. Then the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. POAGE. It seems we have two different viewpoints on the part of the committee. The chairman has clearly expressed, as the gentleman from Ar­kansas pointed out, his viewpoint, which I think is the proper interpretation of the bill as written. The gentleman from California and the gentleman from Hawaii have indicated that in their view the bill is subject to a different interpre­tation, but they then narrowed that down to where it probably has no meaning. Now, is it the view of the gentleman from Texas, as it is mine, that a great majority of the church-affiliated schools over the United States are established not simply to provide instruction in mathematics, science, or language, or even simply to promulgate a specific re­ligious faith but in a great many cases it is also to provide a religious atmosphere in which they may help develop a citizenship, and that that religious atmosphere certainly cannot be main­tained if these schools are required by some agency in Washington to employ any atheist that comes along and asks for employment when they have a vacancy?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I certainly agree with the gentleman from Texas[Mr. POAGE). I feel that here are these religious leaders and their wives who have contributed to this religious faith all of their lives. Now they have come upon times when they need to be em­ployed. Certainly, they are entitled to be taken in by their church that they have supported all of their adult life.

Mr. CHELF. If there is any doubt about it, then we should adopt the amendment; should we not? Of course, we should.

MR CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POAGE. Without regard to the orphans' home, and I think the gentle­man has given us a splendid illustration there, but there are hundreds of church­ affiliated schools throughout the United States. Maybe they are more prevalent in the country with which I am familiar than they are in the area with which the chairman of the Committee on the Judi­ciary, the gentleman from New York, is familiar. There are hundreds of them across the South. I think these schools are rendering a wonderful service to our Nation and to our civilization. I think, if they should be wiped out, and even if we should replace them with State-sup­ported institutions . which might well be able to give our young people every bit of education and cultural training which these church-affiliated institutions are now giving, Mr. Chairman, that the Nation would suffer an irreparable loss in the type of training for citizenship and Christian living which the church-affiliated institutions provide. I want to ask the gentleman from Texas if he did not understand that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary made it perfectly plain that he did not believe that our church-related schools had any purpose except to promote a particular theology. The chairman made it plain that he was not con­cerned with the moral or religious attitude of the students, but that his only concern was to see that there were properly qualified teachers of mathematics and of physics and of sociology and that he was willing that the head of the department of religion held views somewhat in accord with the beliefs of the denomination which supported the school. He then went on to make it clear that the bill as written would prohibit

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 2589

the school from refusing employment to a housemother, for instance, just because she was an atheist. Would not the gentlemen agree that any church affiliated school should be free to deny employment to anyone who comes in contact with students-,and on the strictly religious grounds that such a person was of another faith?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I would answer the gentleman by saying we certainly have no unanimity and certainly the amendment ought to be adopted.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. CELLER. There is no inconsistency whatsoever with the statement I made and the statement made by the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. May I re­peat the illustration, Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from New York was not here when I first started to speak. I have in the district that I am priv­ileged to represent one of the largest church supported orphans homes in the United States. As a matter of course, they employ the widows of deceased preachers of their faith and pastors who have become disabled to come in as teachers in that orphans home. They maintain a large farm. It is a wholly church supported institution. Is my or­phans home exempt from your bill?

Mr. COLLER. If it is a wholly church supported organization, that is, a reli­gious corporation that comes under sec­tion 703.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. But it is not set up as a corporation.

Mr. COLLER. Will the gentleman let me please answer. I appreciate the gen­tleman's impatience, but please let me answer. That orphans home, as the gentleman described it, would be exempt under the terms of section 703 where we state spe­cifically that this title should not apply to an employer with respect to the em­ployment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society. So, therefore, they would be exempt completely.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. Mr. Chair­man, it is not established as a corpora­tion. It is an association. It is not a corporation.

Mr. CELLER. The language of the bill uses the word "association" and therefore would be covered by this pro­vision. The bill says "religious corporation and association or society." The word "association" is in the bill and, therefore, they are exempt.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. COLLIER. In light of the fact that the question was raised here on whether or not this amendment would be in order where there are Federal funds used in aid or in support of an institution of higher learning under this amendment, I respectfully call to the attention of the House that in the original land-grant charter of the American University here in Washington, the U.S. Government permitted a provision that certain members of the board of directors be of the Methodist faith. So I believe by precedent and historically this should erase any argument which might develop in that light.

Mr. ROBERTS of Texas. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, under the circumstances it would seem obvious there is no way to be certain other than by adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL]. I hope it will be adopted and I congratulate the gentleman for introducing the amendment.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I shall not use the entire 5 minutes. I should like to remind Members of the remarks made by the ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. MCCULLOCH] when he stated very clearly that the bill provides a clear exception in any in­stance when religion or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operations of the business or enterprise. What could be more reasonable? What could be more all embracing? What could be more fair than that language? I cannot understand why we should now open this up to the broadest possible loophole by removing the standard that the exception be related to bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the enterprise. No college, no school, no university, no church that I can think of would call this standard unreasonable. It appears to me to be eminently fair. The amendment which has been offered is designed to strike out any standard at all and would eliminate the application of this act in all areas involving colleges and universities of religious orientation. It seems to me to be unreasonable. I believe the amendment should be voted down.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentle­man from Arkansas.

Mr. HARRIS. Do I correctly under­stand the gentleman to say that there is no conflict between what is presently included in the exemption of the present section and the provisions included in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. LINDSAY. There is most certainly a conflict, because the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas would remove the standard.

Mr. BROMWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. It seems to me, at this stage of debate, we may tend subconsciously to become confused with respect to the racial provisions of the law and the religious provisions. What we are in the position of advocating, it seems to me, if we take a position against this amendment, is that a religiously founded and maintained institution shall be judged on its compliance with the laws of the United States on the basis of the number of people of some other faith it em­ploys. That does not seem reasonable to me. I believe there is room for an exception. Perhaps more important than this is the point beginning to be made repeatedly by speakers at this time that if there ever was a legislative history which became confused in the time of less than an hour, this is it. I believe every shade of opinion has been ventured on this language which is conceivable. I agree most wholeheartedly with the vigorous gentleman from Kentucky and others that so long as there is any ques­tion about the interpretation of this we should nail it down with the amendment of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROMWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I rise in support of this amendment. At this point in our deliberations I am inclined to vote for this bill. I, however, must vigorously approve any attempt by this Government to interfere in any way with any church or religious institution in its hiring of personnel in any category. I agree with my good friend from Ohio that by this amendment we may be throwing a legal roadblock in anyway ­but if we do not include this amendment we are throwing a moral roadblock in the attempts of the church related in­stitutions to carry out what they con­sider to be their moral responsibility to their faith.

Mr. GILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think the evening has worn on to the point where the hunger gnawing at our vitals may be gnawing a little bit at our understanding as well. We are now attempting to move into an area where there are great wells of emotion, where there is probably a great well of misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise, and an area which is going to cause us a great deal of difficulty unless we stop and think carefully about what we are trying to do here.

I assume the gentleman offering this amendment is not trying to kill the bill. I have to make that assumption. I as­sume he is not trying to open up a door which will cause us trouble in the future.

I would like to call your attention to the language of the amendment, which is the only thing that has not been dis­cussed so far. The amendment says: It shall not be unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other learning is in whole or in substantial part owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a partic­ular religion or by a particular religious group, association, or society or if the curriculum of such school, college, university or other institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

2590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE

Let me merely point out that a very large percentage of the private universities of this country and American University has been mentioned; Harvard University has not been mentioned, but I now mention it, and Southern Methodist University is another, and there are scores of other large and prestigious universities of this country that were connected in the beginning or are still connected with some particular denomination of the Christian faith. What this amendment would allow these universities to do, if they so desired and I think or I hope,. at least, that their good sense would prevent them from doing it--would be to say that you cannot work for Southern Methodist if you are a Presbyterian, or you cannot work for Harvard if you are a Catholic. Now, this is ridiculous. If what is involved is the control of the institution or exercising guidance over it, as some of your boards of visitors in your Methodist colleges do, fine; you are exempted in the act. It is a bona fide condition of employment. But if it is a matter of working as a janitor or cafeteria employee, why should you be a Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, or, in my State, a Buddhist? What difference does it make as long as you can do the job? I might ask you further what difference does religion make to a mathematics professor at Southern Methodist? Are Methodists better mathematics profes­sors than Presbyterians or Baptists? Not necessarily. It depends on the individual. I think you are opening up a Pandora's box, perhaps unintentionally. If the gentleman who offered this amendment would like to limit the ap­plication of the amendment by the condition that the curriculum of such school is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion, I think his amendment would be fine. Certainly you should hire Methodists to teach Methodism but not necessarily Methodists to sweep the floor just because they are Methodists. I would also like to point out there is hardly a large private school in this country that does not receive substan­tial amounts of Federal funds. We all know this. And under the new Higher Education Act they will receive more funds. Do you not think you are going to run into a problem here of paying Federal funds to an institution which would have the right under this law to say, "We will not hire certain qualified citizens of these United States purely because of their religion"? I think you have a problem - a real bag of pears, prickly pears, out of Texas.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GILL. I yield.

Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I will concede that some of the points he has made have validity, but I think when you turn the coin around, when you look at it from the other side, a case can be made which is just as strong the other way. While I think it is very unlikely that a university ……… about, at the same time will not the gentleman concede that a college that is dedicated primarily to the propagation of its faith should have the right to say that, "We are not going to hire someone who opposes that faith and vigorously talks against that faith?" Should not that college have at least that basic right, on the other side?

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. GILL] has expired.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Purcell amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support this amendment because I think it will clear up what we really mean to do. There seems to be an assumption that religious-affiliated educational institutions-an assumption made by those who oppose the Purcell amendment-refuse to hire anyone of a religion other than their own. That is just not the case. You will find instance after instance in religious-affiliated educational institu­tions where they hire people of other religions. I know of instances where a Catholic university hired a Jewish professor or a Lutheran college hired a Catholic professor. What we are really saying by this amendment is that there is no way for the Federal Government to make the judgment of whether the institution made a mistake in selecting a person because they took into consideration his religion. Let us take for example Harvard University which has been referred to as having religious affiliation. Suppose they have a Newman club in that university and they want to hire a mathematics professor who agrees that he will be the advisor of a Newman club at that university. They should be permitted to do that. There is nothing in this amendment which goes to the question of race, color, or national origin. In Title VI if the university receives Federal money under the Academic Facilities Bill that we passed earlier this year they will be subject to the provisions of Title VI in regard to race, color, or national origin. However, I think there is no way for the Federal Government to make a proper decision as to the religion of employees in religious educational institutions. I think in the case of an institution which is in whole or in part connected with a religious denomination or is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion, that decision ought to be made by them and in order to make it absolutely clear this amendment should be adopted. This amendment does not strike out any language that applies to section 703. The language in 703 still applies. The language in section 704(e) still applies. Nothing has been stricken. Just to make it abundantly clear, in the case of religious educational institutions or those that propagate a particular religion, they can have this freedom to decide whether they think a janitor or somebody to take care of their lawns or a mathematics professor or someone working in the treasurer's office in the college or any other employee should want him to be of their own religion or some other religion. I think we had better leave religious decisions to religious institutions themselves and not attempt to do it ourselves through Federal execu­tive agencies. Therefore I believe that we can and should in our best judgment support this amendment.

Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL] deserves our most serious consideration. In my judgment, it is one of the most important amendments yet introduced. I vigorously support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise because it penetrates right to the heart of the church-state issue. The fact that this bill, if enacted into law, without the Purcell amendment could set the stage for regulation or possible subversion of any religion, under the guise of discrimination is, in my opinion, in direct conflict with the first amendment to the Constitution. As stipulated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; the language is precise and very clear.

Unless this amendment is accepted, the civil rights bill in its entirety will be in jeopardy for final passage and rightly so because one of the most important and fundamental rights of mankind is that of religious liberty. Destroy this, in whole or in part and you have set the stage for the moral decay of this great republic. Any and all acts by legislation or Executive decree which unite or tend to unite church and state are subversive of human rights, potentially persecuting in character, and opposed to the best interests of church and state, therefore, it is not within the province of human government to enact such legislation. It is our duty to use every lawful and honorable means to prevent the enactment of legislation which tends to unite church and state, and to oppose every movement toward such union, so that all may enjoy the continuing and inestimable blessings of religious liberty.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. LINDSAY to the amendment offered by Mr. PURCELL: In line 3, after the word "employ", insert "administrative or instructional".

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the original amendment be read as amended by the amendment that has been offered to the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. The Clerk read as follows:

On page 70 line 4 insert "(1)" immediate-……..

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 2591

the period in line 10 on page 70 insert the following: ", and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ administrative or instructional employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or if the curriculum of such school, college, or university, or other educational institution is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, It seems to me that the amendment to the amendment covers on all fours precisely the problem that we were discussing, and I would hope that the distinguished gentleman from Texas, author of the original amendment, would accept this amendment to the amendment.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York and I understand the author of the amendment will accept it.

Mr. POFF. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. POPP. May I inquire of the gentleman if the language on pages 68 and 71 does not already exclude administrative and instructional personnel?

Mr. LINDSAY. It does not, because there would be religious qualifications involved.

Mr. POFF. What does the language in those sections exclude?

Mr. LINDSAY. A librarian would be one.

Mr. POFF. Are professors instructional personnel?

Mr. LINDSAY. Yes; all members of the faculty, deans and the dean offices.

Mr. POPP. Is the gentleman saying when the language was written on pages 68 and 71 there was no intent to except professors in church-related schools?

Mr. LINDSAY. Again, every professor in my judgment, could be one who could meet this standard that is written into the bill; he may have the occupational qualifications reasonably necessary for the operation of that institution.

Mr. POFF. I can only express the hope that the author of the amendment will not heed the entreaties to accept the amendment to his amendment.

Mr. LINDSAY. I cannot see how a reasonable man could quarrel with the proposition. The amendment would cover members of the faculty: It covers all administrative personnel. The per­sons who would not be covered would be those of the labor force, groundskeeper: and the like. I am at loss to try to dis­cover what the objection is.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentle­man from Minnesota.

Mr. QUIE. What about the house­mother in a girls' dormitory, or the family that takes care of the boys' dormitory?

Mr. LINDSAY. That is clearly administrative.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDSAY. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. WHITTEN. Is it not commonly taken in law that where you set out by name a particular group, which is excepted, that the courts would hold all or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of those not named would be included? If such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion. If you except administrative employees to­gether with one or two groups by name, do you not thereby include everybody else or every other group not mentioned?

Mr. LINDSAY. I think the word "administrative" is very wide. I understand the gentleman's point of view. He does not want to include anybody.

Mr. WHITTEN. Is it not true that when the gentleman's amendment attempts to name one group, the provisions of the act would apply to everyone who is not named?

Mr. LINDSAY. Who is the gentleman worried about? What employees is the gentleman concerned about?

Mr. WHITTEN. Where religious institutions are involved, I believe that the religious institutions should have full right to see that all employees fit into their own plan of operations and are cooperative with what their objective is. There are plenty of religious denominations who are taught under their beliefs to be missionaries, to attempt to convert every other person they come in contact with. I will not call their names here, but there are several such denominations in the United States. The gentleman would require a religious group to employ even members of these competing religious groups who make a practice of converting members of another faith? I say to the gentleman that would be done.

Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ASHMORE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] says he is at a loss to understand why the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL], will not accept his amendment. May I say a few words: In the first place, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] was opposed to any amendment to the original language of this section of the bill. He said there was nothing wrong with it; that there be no tampering with the bill. So did the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER]. Now they offer an amendment and expect us to follow them down their "primrose path."

Mr. ASHMORE. I agree with what the gentleman from Iowa has said. It is as I said last Saturday during the general debate. I attempted to tell you how this bill got here. It was never considered by the full Judiciary Committee. Mind you, I say the full committee. The full Judiciary Committee has never debated, never discussed, never analyzed, and never attempted to amend one single word, line, phrase, or section in title VII of this bill. If we had, it would have come to you in far different shape than what it is today. Therefore, I say we are spending time here this afternoon on this measure that should have been spent months ago by the Committee on the Judiciary of this House of Representatives where 35 lawyers could have sat down and acted as a law firm at the conference table and discussed this thing in a proper, calm, temperate manner, as we ordinarily do when we have important legislation to consider. Of course, that is all gone water over the dam. But I just want to emphasize to you that here we have the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the ranking minority member of the committee offering 8 or 10 amendments, to perfect this most imperfect bill this bill that all of us will have to acknowledge is in exceedingly bad condition, and which should never have come here to this floor. Now to get to the main point for which I arose, Mr. Chairman. Certainly there is, in the minds of most Members of this House, serious question as to whether religious institutions are eliminated or covered under the present language of the bill. Therefore, as several Members have already stated, we should give serious consideration to this and, if there is any doubt about what the bill now provides, we should support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. But there is one point that has not been mentioned so far in the debate on this particular amendment. That is something fundamental which I want to call to your attention. I do not believe anyone then will say that there is any reason not to adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and to my friends on both sides of the aisle that the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, that is the clause I am interested in says: Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Now is the Government of this coun­try under this FEPC section of the bill entitled to tell a college or university of any religious faith who they must hire or fire? Whether the employee is a member of the faculty or of the administrative department of the university or college, or whether he be a cook, janitor, or gardener, it makes no difference because it would be contrary to the Constitution in either case. That college or that university has the right, if it is a religious institution, to select all of its administrative officers, its faculty members and all of its employees without being dictated to by the Federal Government. So if you do not adopt the amendment that my friend, the gentleman from Texas offered, you will be going directly contrary to the first amendment of the Constitution. The language in the bill as now written is unconstitutional.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. I come in the well of the House with a great deal of trepidation and a deep

2592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE

emotional impact on my own personal life when I talk about this particular amendment. This is because I belong to a brotherhood, the same one which the President of the United States belongs to. I belong to the Disciples of Christ and some people call it the Campbellite Church and some call it the Christian Church. It came into existence in the log cabins of western Virginia, which was later Kentucky, about 200 years ago. I am proud of my church. I am glad to belong to it. I feel the principles it teaches are good and I want to hand those principles on down to my children after me. Part of the principles of my church is that it is a brotherhood. We have church schools. I am on the board of trustees of Lynchburg College, which is a Disciples of Christ Church school. I am happy to be there. I am happy to serve in connection with the old people's home in Jacksonville, Fla., where retired Disciples of Christ people go. They do hire janitors of my faith. They hire charwomen of my faith. Is there something bad about that? Every year of my life I give something, I hope it is generous, to these institutions. I am happy to belong to this brotherhood. I hope I die a member of this brother hood. Is there something wrong that I want to see the fine women of my church-why may reach the point in life where they are having a tough time and who have contributed to our church through the years-have an opportunity to become charwomen in the old people's home or in the school at Lynchburg? I hope these fine institutions would not be discriminating against anyone in the sense of hurting anybody, but they do have a right not only to pick the faculty from my brotherhood but they have a right to have a community of our brotherhood there. This is the reason why the first amendment to the Constitution was adopted. The electrical unhappiness about what is happening here today is at the heart of the first amendment to the Constitution. Several days ago I heard the President of the United States make a statement before a. group of us at a prayer meeting. I cannot quote his words exactly, but in essence he said that he hoped our country would never get into the position where it entered into the vitals of church matters and destroyed their ideals and fundamental principles. I say we should turn down the amend went of the gentleman from New York, and accept the amendment of the gentleman from Texas, because this is the way, our country was wisely operated. We do have different people. We do have different religious beliefs. We ought to preserve them. We should not insult anyone. All of us should allow all of us to worship as we see fit.

Mr. GARY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. GARY. I am a member of the board of trustees of a Baptist college, It is a large Baptist college. It employs Negroes. But I do not want that college to be forced to employ a janitor or any other employee who is an atheist or a Communist or a member of some other religious faith unless it wishes to do so. On the other hand, if it prefers to employ only Baptists, whether it be for the position of janitor, charwoman, or any other service, I see no reason why it should not have the right to do so. We are talking about rights in this bill. I believe we ought to respect the rights of all out people. I do not believe we should pass legislation aimed solely at rights for a certain group or class of people. I believe it should pro­test the rights of all the people of the United States. Certainly a religious college should have a right to employ members of its own religious faith to administer and to handle the affairs of that college, re­gardless of the position which might be involved. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the floor.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. EDMONDSON. The gentleman from Florida now in the well has, as always, spoken from the heart. He has gone directly to the heart of this prob­lem. I know the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] is well intentioned in this regard, but I agree wholeheartedly with the gentleman from Florida that his amendment will not do the job which would be done by the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL]. I hope we will reject the amendment of the gentleman from New York and adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. MAHON. I wish to heartily endorse the statements made by the gen­tleman from Florida and the other gen­tlemen. I want to join in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PURCELL).

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BENNETT of Florida. I thank you for your support.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas and in complete opposition to the amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. In my district and State there are many religious and church-related colleges, orphanages, and other charitable institutions. They are Baptist, Methodist, Quaker, Catholic, Presbyterian, Christian, Masonic Order, and others. I do not know of my own personal knowledge what their employment practices are. It is none of my business and none of the business of the Federal Government. I feel very strongly , Mr. Chairman, that the Government should never have the authority to dictate or meddle into the affairs of our religious and charitable institutions. This provison should never have been placed on the bill, and it should be removed by the amendment. I stand here on the floor and earnestly beg this House not to take away from our dedicated historical and vital church ­related schools and other charitable institutions the right to employ the teachers or the janitors of their choice. Gentlemen, this is a fundamental and constitutional right which must never be violated, and I urge with all of my power that the chairman of the committee accept the amendment of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I yield to the gen­tleman from New York.

Mr. CELLER. In the light of the de­bate which has ensued on the amend­ment offered by the gentleman from Texas and the amendment to the amend­ment offered by the gentleman from New York, I personally am willing to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I yield to the gen­tleman from California [Mr. Roosevelt].

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I simply wish to say that I am happy at the decision of the gentleman from New York. The Committee on Education and Labor felt that was what it had done in the bill. Obviously, as it appears, we had not suffi­ciently covered the point. Therefore, we are entirely in agreement with the de­cision of the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I yield to the gen­tleman from Ohio.

Mr. MCCULLOCH. We were pleased to discuss the matter with the chairman of the committee and we are glad to withdraw our amendment and support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY.I yield to the gen­tleman from Arkansas.

Mr. HARRIS. Do I understand after these most distinguished and able col­leagues have gotten together here and finally gotten religion, do I interpret them to mean the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY], would not be acceptable?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

Mr. HARRIS. And without the amendment to the amendment you are willing to take the amendment of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

Mr. HARRIS. Let me commend the gentleman and each of the gentlemen,

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 2593

and I hope the gentleman from New for York [Mr. LINDSAY], will give his assent to it.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I would like to highly commend the gentleman from New York for accepting this amendment which will permit our religious and church-related colleges and charitable institutions the freedom to employ the teachers and personnel of their choice.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DORN. I want to join my distinguished colleague from North Carolina in support of the amendment. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his able argument as I am certain his contribution to this debate greatly influenced the chairman and the House to accept this amendment which protects our sacred institutions.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KORNEGAY. I am grateful to the gentleman from South Carolina and I now yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. CHELF. I want, too, to add my commendation and congratulations to our distinguished and beloved chairman of the great Judiciary Committee of the House on his acceptance of this Purcell amendment. It is very wise and fair. He reminds me of St. Paul on the road to Damascus. He suddenly sees the light. Also I want to salute my good friend from North Carolina [Mr. KORNEGAY] for his hard fight to secure the adoption of this most vital amendment. Bless you, my dear friend. Your support on this fight was most convincing.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has ex­pired.

Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. LINDSAY] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas is withdrawn.

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the amendment offered by the gen­tleman from Texas.

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CAHILL

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that both amend­ments be read together and considered at the same time. They both amend the same section.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, may we have the amendments read before consent is given to having them considered en bloc?

The CHAIRMAN. The regular order is that the Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey.

The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. CAHILL: On page 69, line 17, after the semicolon, strike out the word "or" and after line 20 add, "(4) to give preference to one applicant for membership over another applicant for reasons other than job qualifications and for reasons which may have the indirect effect of causing discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin." On page 70, line 3, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof a semicolon and add the following: "or to give preference to one ap­plicant over another in admission to, or em­ployment in, any such program for reasons other than job qualifications and for reasons which may have the indirect effect of causing discrimination because of race, color, reli­gion, or national origin. "

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey that the amendments be consid­ered en bloc?

There was no objection.

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, these two amendments would amend section 704 of the bill. I was surprised to learn and I do not know whether it is within the knowledge of the members of the committee or not-that prior to this bill there has never been a Federal statute under which any agency of the Federal Government could compel a union to ac­cept any person as a member. I under­stand that all of the national unions of the United States are supporting this title of the bill, as am I, but as I read the section of the bill which makes it an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization to exclude member­ship, it can only exclude membership on the basis of race, color, religion, or na­tional origin; and, in the following sec­tion, section (d), it is only an unlawful practice if an employer or a labor orga­nization fails to accept apprentices on the same basis. The courts have held, as I understand the law, that unions have an absolute right to fix the qualifications of their members and it has been my impression that the national unions of this coun­try have been experiencing a good deal of trouble with some of the smaller unions, some of the unaffiliated unions, that have excluded membership in spite of the fact that the applicant is qualified. For example, I have a case in my own district where a man served his apprenticeship, he worked at the trade since 1948; and he cannot get membership in a union. The purpose of my amendment is to permit any qualified person to become a member of a union and not to limit the authority of the Commission merely to cases of disqualification on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin. Thus, if a qualified person makes application for membership in the union and is denied membership for any reason other than his qualifications to do ­ the job, that person would also have a right to go to the Commission and there get a hearing. If it were determined by the Commission or the courts that he was excluded for any reason other than qualifications, he would be permitted to become a member of the union. In that way he would be permitted to go and get a job where union membership was required. A similar amendment having the same intent and purpose would apply to section (d) of the bill. It has been my understanding that the national labor organizations have been conducting a commendable fight to eliminate this type of discrimination where some of the small unions that have handed down jobs from father to son and brother to brother, and who have declined to accept member­ship, even though the members were qualified. While the national unions have been trying to eliminate this abuse and I want to commend all of the 11a­tional organizations, particularly the AFL-CIO, in attempting to do this, and also in supporting Title VII of this bill, the evil nevertheless continues to exist. I feel therefore if we are going to elim­inate discrimination on the basis of race and color we ought to also eliminate any other discrimination that may exist, so that any man who is qualified and who is anxious to work can become a member on paying the union dues. Since there is no statute compelling admission to a union, this will be the only statute, and if this statute is not amended then the only basis for exclusion will be race, color, and so forth. I would urge the Committee to accept my amendment.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAHILL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. If I understand the gentleman right, you would go beyond just a labor organization. You might take in a professional association that practices that sort of discrimination, as you call it?

Mr. CAHILL. No. That is not the fact.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.

(By unanimous consent (at the request of Mr. ROOSEVELT) Mr. CAHILL was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes. )

Mr. DENT. Mr.. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAHILL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DENT. I want to clarify this situation. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a student may enter a law school, he may graduate from that law school, and the local bar association can prevent him from practicing law in any specific county although he has passed the bar, graduated from college, yet the bar association committee on admittance will bar him for something he had nothing to do with.

Mr. CAHILL. I understand the gentleman's question, and I understand the situation as it exists in Pennsylvania. I will say this is an amendment to section 704, subsection (1) which reads that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization. The bar association is not included.

Mr. DENT. I do not think the gentleman's amendment is germane to the purpose of the act anymore than if I offered an amendment to prevent a bar association from admitting only approved applicants.

Mr. OSMERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

___________________________________







links updated 6/24/08 rab
Paged checked July 1st, 2010, FJL.



Last Revised 17-Nov-08 04:30 PM.