that the Census Bureau revise its procedure to gather more data on Puerto Ricans. This recommendation is backed up with a very reasonable observation: "One obstacle to the effective implementation of government action to aid Puerto Ricans is the lack of reliable, comprehensive socioeconomic data. The paucity and lack of uniformity of available data makes it difficult to focus adequately on key problem areas, and to measure progress in the solution or alleviation of problems." In 1976, the Catholic League made a similar recommendation to the Census Bureau, namely, that it gather data on religious affiliation so that religious discrimination can more easily be identified and corrected. The Census Bureau refused to do this, and announced that there would be no questions on religious affiliation in the 1980 census.

Now this, obviously is a decision that the Census Bureau is empowered to make, and for which the Civil Rights Commission cannot be held responsible. But the reason the Census Bureau gave for taking this position was that such questions would be a violation of civil rights. In view of the abundant evidence showing that discrimination exists against Catholics, Jews and other religious minorities, it would seem that it was incumbent on the Civil Rights Commission to disabuse the Census Bureau of that notion, and to advocate inclusion of questions on religious affiliation as a means of combatting religious discrimination and protecting, not violating, civil rights. After all, if better data collection can help protect Puerto Ricans from discrimination, as the Commission correctly notes, it is obvious that such data will also help to protect religious minorities. But because the Commission has failed to recognize this problem, independent efforts to protect the civil rights of religious minorities will be hampered for another decade by insufficient data.

The 230 page volume entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" (April 1977) undoubtedly consumed a substantial amount of the Commission's resources in search of "sexist" language in our statutory law. The utility of such a report is questionable, and its very issuance reflects a serious misallocation of resources. There are many people suffering from religious and ethnic discrimination every day who could be helped by an investigation into their problems. The Commission exalts form over substance and assigns its staff the esthetically valuable, but hardly helpful, chore of poring over law books to determine whether the use of the masculine pronoun is in some fashion degrading of women's rights. The Commission fiddles while the city burns.

II. BIAS AND THE COMMISSION: A CRITIQUE OF ITS SCHOLARSHIP AND IMPARTIALITY Prior to attending this Committee Hearing, I have had the honor of participating in the adjudication of the constitutionality of the so-called Hyde Amendment. During that hearing I heard testimony introduced by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and The Center for Constitutional Rights alleging that Catholics are "poisoning the political process" and endangering public order because they believe the unborn have civil rights too. The testimony seeks to prove that people of religion have no business influencing congressmen to vote according to their moral precepts, philosophy or view of ethics. It is alleged that persons who are motivated by religion should not be involved by the political process. Why? Because people may disagree. Several days of testimony calculated to defame American Catholics and issue dire warnings that the United States may turn into another Northern Ireland if abortion becomes a matter of heated national debate were served up for the Court's consideration. Why do I mention it here?

The Civil Rights Commission itself is guilty of slur tactics against people of religion. In its 1974 report on "Constitutional Aspects of the Right to Limit Childbearing" the Commission takes an outright pro-abortion, anti-religion stand that the First Amendment is in danger by the enactment of a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Either the Commission's lawyers are sadly misinformed with regard to the intent and genesis of a pro-life amendment (which reflects on their competence) or they are religious bigots who do not appreciate the important role that persons of religion have played historically in the development of public policy in the United States and who should not be on the public payroll. In either case, the shoddiness of the finished product is appalling. I did not come here today to debate abortion and I shall not do so. As an individal who spent nearly two years researching the same topic, however, the lack of independent scholarship, reasoned discussion, and total disregard for opposing points of view is apparent throughout the Commission's discussion of the Right to Limit Childbearing.

The Commission relies heavily on the scholarship of Cyril Means, an admitted abortion advocate, for its legal conclusions. I found that same work to be of dubious value in the course of my own extensive research on the subject. One would hope that the Commission itself would investigate the matter thoroughly and report its findings, not those of another who is an admitted advocate. As a lawyer I would be loathe to cite a source as gospel without some independent scrutiny. If such scrutiny was made, it surely doesn't show. The report reads like a tract published by the National Abortion Rights Action League.

If the Commission is to be truly credible and worthy of future funding it cannot pick and choose its issues; it cannot selectively ignore opposing points of view and utilize dubious scholarship to prove points. The tenor of the Commission's reports, the frequency with which it addresses the same subjects and ignores others, places the Commission in the category of a super-lobby for "governmentally approved" minorities.

If it were to close its doors tomorrow, the same functions could be carried on by NOW, AIM, the NAACP, Hispanic-American and Asian-American lobbys. It would scarcely be missed by anyone else. Those who run the Commission are apparently so committed to their notion of who should share the "good life" that they forget that others who do not share their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or ethnic origins may be having a rough go of it because of what they believe or how they speak. Where is the Civil Rights Commission when a Polish architect is dismissed because of the fact that he had an Eastern European accent. Where is the "white-male advantage" for this Polish-born, heavily accented speaker of English? He has been discriminated against on the basis of his national origin.

Where is the Civil Rights Commission when religions are barred from state legislatures? Where is the Commission when Fundamentalists and Amish are oppressed by the state in which they live? Where is the Commission when anyone other than an approved minority is victimized: looking for discriminatory grammatical usage?

[The exhibits submitted by Mr. Destro were marked "Exhibits 38 to 40" and are as follows:]

ATTACHMENT A: RACE/COLOR*

ATTACHMENT A-1

1977

(1) School desegregation in Stamford.

(2) School desegregation in Bogalusa.

(3) School desegregation in Newport News City.

(4) School desegregation in Raleigh County.
(5) School desegregation in Corpus Christi.
(6) School desegregation in Santa Barbara.
(7) School desegregation in Greenville.
(8) School desegregation in Berkeley.
(9) School desegregation in Portland.
(10) School desegregation in Ossining.
(11) School desegregation in Waterloo.
(12) School desegregation in Tulsa.
(13) School desegregation in Wichita.
(14) School desegregation in Colorado Springs.
(15) School desegregation in Kalamazoo.

(16) School desegregation in Erie.

(17) School desegregation in Ogden.

(18) School desegregation in Minneapolis.

(19) School desegregation in Williamsburg Co.

(20) School desegregation in Peoria.

(21) School desegregation in Nashville.

(22) School desegregation in Racine.

(23) School desegregation in Little Rock.

(24) School desegregation in Stamford.

(25) School desegregation in Kirkwood.

(26) Equal Opportunity in Fort Waye Schools: A Continuing Struggle. (27) Criminal Justice for Native Americans in North Dakota.

(28) Working with your School.

(29) The Forgotten Minority: Asian Americans in New York City.

(30) Equality and Justice for All.

(31) Crisis and Opportunity: Education in Greater Kansas City. (32) Reviewing a Decade of School Desegregation.

(33) A Better Chance to Learn: Bilingual/Bicultural Education.

(34) Puerto Ricans in the U.S.: An Uncertain Future.

(35) Justice in Flagstaff: Are These Rights Inalienable?

(36) Statement on Metropolitan School Desegregation.

(37) Working With Your School: Handbook.

(38) A Generation Deprived: Los Angeles School Desegregation.

ATTACHMENT A-2

1976

(1) Civil Rights and the Housing and Community Act of 1974: The Chippewa People of Sault Ste. Marie.

(2) State Administration of Bilingual Education.

(3) Policed by the White Minority: Police/Community Relations in Miami and Dade Counties.

(4) How Far Have We Come? - Migrant Labor in Iowa.

(5) Hispanic Participation in Manpower Programs in Newark, N.J.

(6) Equal Education: A Right.

(7) Fulfilling the Letter and Spirit of the Law: Desegregation of the Public Schools.

(8) The Six-District Plan-Integration of Springfield, Mass. Elementary Schools.

(9) General Revenue Sharing in St. Louis.

(10) Bridging the Gap: Twin Cities' Native American Community.
(11) Milliken v. Bradley: Implications for Metropolitan Desegregation.
(12) Route 128: Boston's Road to Desegregation.

(13) Twenty Years After Brown: Equal Opportunity in Housing.
(14) Mortgage Money. Who Gets It?

(15) Dream Unfulfilled, Korean and Philipino Health Professionals in California.

(16) Bicultural Equal Education: A Right: Handbook for Parents. (17) Para-las Ninos-For the Children: Improving Education for Mexican

Americans.

(18) A Long Day's Journey into Light: School Desegregation in Prince Georges County.

(19) A Decade of Waiting in Cairo.

(20) The Challenge Ahead: Equal Opportunity in Referral Unions.

ATTACHMENT A-3

1975

(1) Toward Police/Community Detente in Jacksonville.

(2) Police/Community Relations in Tampa: The Beginning or the End?

(3) Balanced Housing Development in Greater Kansas City.

(4) Indian Employment in New Mexico State Government.

(5) The Farmington Report: A Conflict of Cultures.

(6) Federal and State Services and the Maine Indian.

(7) To Ensure Equal Educational Opportunity.

(8) Voting Rights Act, Ten Years After.

(9) Indiana Migrants, Blighted Hopes, Slighted Rights.

(10) School Desegregation in Boston.

(11) Desegregating Boston Public Schools: Crisis in Civic Responsibility.

(12) Navajo Nation, American Colony.

(13) Southwest Indian Report.

(14) Asian-Americans and Pacific Peoples: Case of Mistaken Identity.

(15) Report of Investigation: Oglala Sioux Tribe, General Election.

ATTACHMENT A-4

1974

(1) Blacks in the Arkansas Delta.

(2) Racial Problems in Fort Dodge, Iowa.

(3) To Grant or Not to Grant.

(4) Employment Discrimination in the Construction Industry in Baltimore. (5) Judicial Selection in Virginia: The Absence of Black Judges.

(6) The Struggle for Justice and Redress in Northern New Mexico.

(7) Indian Civil Right Issues in Oklahoma.

(8) Economic and Political Problems of Indians in Robeson County. (9) Report on Indian Education: State of Washington.

(10) Indian Civil Right Issues in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. (11) Education and Housing of Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia.

(12) Bilingual/Bicultural Education: A right or a Privilege?

(13) Your Right to Indian Welfare: Handbook on BIA General Assistance

Program.

(14) Counting the Forgotten: 1970 Census Count of Spanish Speaking Persons in U.S.

ATTACHMENT A-5
1973

(1) Mexican-American Education Study: Report IV.

(2) Crisis in Housing on Upper Eastern Shore.

(3) Equal Opportunity in Government Employment in Tacoma.

(4) Fear Runs Deep.

(5) George Mason College: For all the People?

(6) Issues of Concern to Puerto Ricans in Boston and Springfield.

(7) Socio-economic Profile of American-Indians in Arizona and New Mexico. (8) Title 4 and School Desegregation: Study of Neglected Federal Program.

(9) Walk Together Children: Housing and Education in Iowa.

(10) Mexican-American Education Study: Report V.

(11) The Schools of Guadalupe: A Legacy of Education Oppression.

(12) Reapportionment of Los Angeles; 15 City Councilmanic Districts. (13) Educational Neglect of Mexican-American Students in the Lucia Mar

Unified School District.

(14) El Boricua: The Puerto Rican Community in Bridgeport and New Haven. (15) The Puerto Rican and Public Employment in New York.

(16) The Tuskegee Study.

(17) Jobs and Housing in St. Louis.