[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 50 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S4133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         WASHINGTON POST STORY
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, an article appeared in today's Washington 
Post with the catchy, but entirely misleading, headline ``Dole Takes 
180-Degree Turn on Affirmative Action.''
  I would like to take a few moments now to set the record straight.
  If affirmative action means remedying proven past discrimination 
against individuals, then I am all for it.
  If affirmative action means recruitment of qualified minorities and 
women to give them an opportunity to compete, without guaranteeing the 
results of the competition, then I am for that too.
  But if affirmative action means quotas, set-asides, and other 
preferences that favor individuals simply because they happen to belong 
to certain groups, then that is where I draw the line.
  Of course, those who discriminate ought to be punished, and those 
individuals who are the victims of discrimination ought to be made 
whole. But you do not fix one problem by creating another. You don't 
cure discrimination with more discrimination. As I said when the Senate 
unanimously adopted the amendment that created the glass ceiling 
commission: ``There is no right or correct number * * * and my 
opposition to quotas could not be stronger or more deeply felt.''
  That was during the debate which apparently the reporter did not 
check into.
  Mr. President, I am proud of my civil rights record and I have never 
shied away from it. I supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The 
Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Americans With Disabilities Act. The 
compromise leading to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
  However, my past record on civil rights does not, and should not, 
disqualify me from raising legitimate questions about the continuing 
effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action, particularly when the 
affirmative action label is used to describe quotas, set-asides and 
other preferences. In fact, it was precisely because of these questions 
that I asked the Congressional Research Service last December to 
prepare a list of all Federal preference laws and regulations.
  And, after all, even President Clinton and the chairman of the 
Democratic Leadership Council are raising these same questions.
  They understand, as I do, that no Federal program is writ in stone. 
And no Federal policy should be immune from congressional scrutiny.
  This has been my position in the past. It is my position now. And it 
will be my position in the future.
  If we cannot go back and look at some Executive order or some law 
that has been passed 5, 10, 15, or 25 years ago without some liberal 
reporter suggesting that somehow that is a change in position, then I 
think we are never going to accomplish anything. Things have changed. 
The programs have failed in some cases. In some cases, maybe they have 
worked properly. But we have a continuing obligation in the Congress of 
the United States, regardless of our part, to go back and take a look 
at programs or Executive orders, whatever it may be on the horizon, 
regulations that have been in place for a long time and maybe have 
served no useful purpose.
  That is precisely what we intend to do. That is precisely what we 
will do. Hearings will be held on a couple of these provisions, one by 
the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and one of my 
other colleagues, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, relating 
to two programs that we think should be examined.

                          ____________________