[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10260-S10261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, earlier this month, in homes, 
neighborhoods, and communities across the country, Americans celebrated 
our Nation's 219th birthday.
  There was, of course, much to celebrate. Over two centuries after the 
signing of the Declaration of Independence, America remains what she 
has always been--the beacon of freedom, and the last best hope for all 
mankind on Earth.


                      remembering american history

  But as we celebrate these freedoms, and commemorate those who have 
sacrificed so much along the way, we must also remember that American 
history is not always a tale of progress and dreams fulfilled.
  American history is a history of hope mixed with tragedy--
institutionalized slavery, a Constitution which said that African-
Americans were only three-fifths human, Jim Crow and ``separate but 
equal.''
  This legacy is a source of great shame for us precisely because so 
many of these outrages contradicted one of the founding principles of 
our republic--that all men are created equal and that we are all 
endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including the 
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  Today, in the America of 1995, the evils of discrimination and racism 
persist. They may not be as blatant as they once were. They may not be 
as fashionable. But they are out there, lurking in the corners, 
poisoning young minds, and yes, harming real people in the process.
  Over the years, Americans of goodwill have tried to make a 
difference. We have enacted an array of antidiscrimination laws. And in 
the 1960's and the early 1970's, the concept of affirmative action was 
born, the product of a heartfelt desire to rectify past injustices and 
expand opportunity for all Americans. Many Republicans, acting with the 
best of intentions, were directly involved in this effort. I, for one, 
not only supported the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, but have also endorsed certain race- and gender-
conscious steps to remedy the lingering effects of historic 
discrimination. That is my record, and I am proud of it.
                        only a temporary remedy

  Few of us, however, believed that these policies would become a 
seemingly permanent fixture of our society, but that is exactly what 
they have become today.
  During the past 30 years, we have seen the policies of preference 
grow and grow and grow some more, pitting American against American, 
group against group, in a bitter competition for a piece of the 
Government pie.
  Somehow, somewhere along the way, fighting discrimination has become 
an easy excuse to abandon the color-blind ideal. Too often today, the 
laudable goal of expanding opportunity is used by the Federal 
Government to justify dividing Americans. That is wrong, and it ought 
to stop. You do not cure the evil of discrimination with more 
discrimination.


               the president's review: lack of leadership

  President Clinton had the opportunity today to stand up for principle 
by stating--in the clearest possible terms--that it is wrong for the 
Federal Government to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of 
race, color, ethnic background, or gender.
  Without hesitation or ambiguity, he could have said ``yes'' to 
individual rights, and ``no'' to group rights; ``yes'' to the principle 
of equal opportunity and ``no'' to the perversion of this principle 
with the divisive policies of preference.
  Instead of clarity--and I have just finished listening to the 
President--the President has chosen confusion. He has chosen to 
complicate an uncomplicated issue with an avalanche of words and fine 
distinctions.
  This is not a difficult issue: discrimination is wrong, and 
preferential treatment is wrong, too. Our Government in Washington 
should unite the American people, not divide us. It should guarantee 
equal opportunity, not divide Americans through the use of quotas, set-
asides, numerical objectives, and other preferences.
  And that is why I will introduce legislation next week designed to 
get the Federal Government out of the group preference business. The 
President says he is against quotas. Quotas are only a small part of 
the entire regime of preferences. It is not enough to oppose 
``quotas,'' as if the label is what might be offensive. It is the 
practice of dividing Americans through any form of preferential 
treatment that is objectionable.
  The President also denounces preferences for ``unqualified''--
``unqualified'' individuals, when the real issue here is not 
preferences for the unqualified, which virtually every American 
opposes--why have preferences for the unqualified?--but preferences for 
the ``less qualified'' over those who are ``more qualified.'' That is 
the debate. This distinction is critical. But it is one that the 
President conveniently ignores.
  Madam President, leadership is about making the tough choices. It is 
about staking out a clear and crisp principle and holding firm to it. 
And, yes, leadership can sometimes mean putting a little distance 
between yourself and your political allies. Regrettably, the President 
is trying to have it both ways.


                  A Civil Rights Agenda For The 1990'S

  Madam President, 2 years ago, I convened a meeting in my office with 
a distinguished group of African-American leaders with the goal of 
developing a civil rights agenda for the 1990's, one that is relevant 
for the needs and challenges of our time. A relevant civil rights 
agenda means enforcing the antidiscrimination laws that are already on 
the books--enforcing the antidiscrimination laws that are already 

[[Page S 10261]]
on the books. It means removing regulatory barriers to economic 
opportunity--something we are in the throes of trying to do right now 
on the Senate floor--including the discriminatory Davis-Bacon Act. It 
means school choice for low-income, inner-city people and means 
meaningful welfare reform that will transform lives from ones of 
dependence to ones of independence. And it means making our streets 
safer and renewing the war on drugs. After all, our first civil right 
is freedom from the fear of crime.
  This is the real civil rights agenda of our time. Not preferences, 
not set-asides, not quotas, but the dreams that are built on real 
opportunity.
  Madam President, I would hope when I introduce my bill it will become 
at least a focus of dialog because I know different people have 
different views. But none of us believes that discrimination is 
appropriate. It is wrong. It has always been wrong. It should be 
punished. And I think that is what this debate is all about.


                          ____________________