[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 55 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S4559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  Mr. DOLE. As the Washington Post reported today, the overwhelming 
majority of the American people believe that the race-counting game has 
gone too far.
  I am proud of my own civil rights record. I have supported 
affirmative action in the past. That's no secret.
  But my past record did not disqualify me last December from asking 
the Congressional Research Service to compile a list of all Federal 
preference laws and Regulations.
  And my record does not disqualify me today from raising legitimate 
questions about the continuing fairness and effectiveness of 
affirmative action, particularly when the affirmative-action label is 
used to describe quotas, set-asides, and other group preferences.
  Equal treatment, not preferential treatment, should be the standard. 
Equal opportunity, not equal results, must be the goal.
  Earlier today, my distinguished colleague from Maine, Senator Cohen, 
gave a very eloquent speech on the Senate floor where he pointed out 
that America is not a color-blind society, and he is right. 
Discrimination continues to exist. The color-blind ideal is just that--
an ideal that has yet to be achieved in the America of 1995.
  But, Mr. President, do you become a color-blind society by dividing 
people by race? Do you achieve the color-blind ideal by granting 
preferences to people simply because they happen to belong to certain 
groups? Do you continue programs that have outlived their usefulness or 
original purpose? The answer to these questions is, of course, a 
resounding ``no.''
  I look forward to the completion of the President's review of all 
Federal affirmative action policies, but if the President is seeking a 
magical ``third way,'' I suspect he is going to run into a dead end: 
When it comes to the issue of group preferences, you are either for 
them or against them. There can be no splitting the difference, no 
``third way.''
  With that said let us hope that reason prevails as we continue down 
this road. If we keep our voices low and our intentions good, the 
debate over affirmative action can, in fact, be an opportunity to unite 
the American people, and not divide us.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I believe we are prepared to yield back 
our time.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield back our remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to be 
proposed, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, shall the bill pass?
  So the bill (H.R. 831), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendment to H.R. 831, request a conference with the House, and that 
the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr. 
Packwood, Mr. Dole, Mr. Roth, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Moynihan, 
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bradley, and Ms. Moseley-Braun conferees on the part of 
the Senate.

                          ____________________