[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5761-H5762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          THE ADARAND DECISION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court yesterday 
struck an important blow in defense of the fundamental moral and 
constitutional principle of nondiscrimination. In Adarand Constructors 
versus Pena, the Court held that racial classifications by any level of 
government are constitutionally suspect and will be permitted only in 
the most extraordinary circumstances.
  The Court has thus stated unequivocally that the Constitution permits 
governmental racial classifications--including ones enacted by 
Congress--only when they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling 
government interest.
  In so holding, the Court has provided an important and timely impetus 
to [[Page H5762]] congressional action designed to dismantle the 
pervasive regime of race and gender preferences that has been 
established by the Federal Government over the last 25 years.
  Until recently, I do not think anyone truly recognized how widespread 
these Federal preferences really are. But in February of this year, at 
the request of Senator Dole, the Congressional Research Service 
prepared a report collecting the Federal statutes and regulations that 
establish preferences based on race and gender
  CRS compiled a list of approximately 160 such Federal laws, some of 
which are statutory, but the large majority of which are buried in 
agency regulations relating to Federal contracting and employment and 
the administration of Federal programs.
  Simply stated, the Federal Government is a major player in the 
business of granting preferences and imposing burdens on its citizens 
on the basis of race and gender.
  Some of us find troubling the Congress' cavalier acceptance of this 
unjust situation, and I, as well as other Congressmen and Senators, 
have announced an intention to end the injustice through legislation 
prohibiting the use of race and gender preferences by the Federal 
Government.
  I think the Court's decision in Adarand is a very significant step in 
the right direction. Most importantly, the Court's holding is driven by 
a recognition of the principle that must form the basis of any 
systematic review of Federal racial and gender preferences.
  As Justice O'Connor explained for the majority, the equal protection 
clause ``protect[s] persons, not groups.''
  This principle motivates my commitment to making sure that Congress 
picks up where the Court has left us. It is, as the Court emphasized, a 
matter of simple justice that the Government should not favor or 
disfavor any citizen on account of morally irrelevant characteristics 
like race and gender.
  But this issue is about more than reverse discrimination. It is, at 
bottom, about the kind of society we want to live in. And on this 
point, I think defenders and opponents of racial preferences probably 
agree: We, as a society, are far too conscious of race. But we disagree 
on how best to cure this immoral focus on race. Ultimately, of course, 
we will only become a truly colorblind society when each of us commits 
to combating discrimination in our own actions and in the actions of 
those with whom we come into contact.
  But insofar as Congress' role is concerned, there are two major 
things we can and must do. First, we must ensure that the Federal 
antidiscrimination laws are adequate to the task of prohibiting such 
discrimination, and that the enforcement agencies are vigorous and 
judicious in their enforcement efforts.
  Second--and this is where I think we really need to make some 
changes--we should make sure that neither Congress nor the Federal 
Government do anything to require or encourage citizens to engage in 
the sort of race- and gender-conscious policies we purport to abhor.
  On the point, I quite agree with the Court majority in Abarand when 
they wrote that program like racial set-asides ``can only exacerbate 
rather than reduce racial prejudice,'' and indeed ``will delay the time 
when race will become a truly irrelevant * * * factor.''
  It was Justice Blackmun, of course, who wrote in the Bakke case that, 
``To get beyond racism, we must first take race into account.'' But the 
very notion that you cure an evil by engaging in that same evil is 
nonsense. Two wrongs do not make a right. Instead, we should pursue a 
firm commitment to the principle embodied in the Court's holding 
yesterday, and perhaps best captured by Justice Thomas' concurring 
opinion. He wrote:

       I believe that there is a moral and constitutional 
     equivalence between laws designed to subjugate a race and 
     those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order 
     to foster some current notion of equality. Government cannot 
     make us equal; it can only recognize, respect, and protect us 
     as equal before the law.

  I believe that a candid observer must conclude that Congress has 
participated in the creation of a pervasive system of discriminatory 
preferences and has thus failed to abide by the fundamental obligation 
imposed by the equal protection clause.
  And so I welcome the Court's decision in Adarand. I hope and trust 
that my colleagues in the House and the Senate will follow the Court's 
lead and do what we can to restore to our Federal laws the principle of 
nondiscrimination. We would do well to rededicate ourselves to the 
simple truth pointed out yesterday in Justice Scalia's 
characteristically poignant concurring opinion: ``In the eyes of 
government, we are just one race here. It is American.''


                          ____________________