[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10827-S10832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE CONNECTICUT OLD STATE HOUSE COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Connecticut Old State House Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act.
  The Old State House sits in the very center of Hartford, CT, and it 
is one of the single most important buildings in the entire State. It 
stands as a shining example of 18th century architecture and has been 
designated a Registered National Landmark by the Secretary of the 
Interior. In May 1996, the Old State House will celebrate its 200th 
birthday.
  The Old State House is steeped in tradition and history. It is on 
this site that the Colony of Connecticut was actually founded. In May 
1796, the State House opened its doors, and it was there that General 
Washington first met Comte de Rochambeau to begin the Yorktown strategy 
to end the Revolutionary War.
  The Old State House served as a seat of government until 1878, and 
numerous historical figures have visited the building, including Mark 
Twain, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Lafayette, and Presidents Monroe, 
Jackson, Johnson, Ford, Carter, and Bush.
  Since 1979, the Old State House has become a thriving landmark--a 
cultural and historical mecca for tourists and residents alike. Years 
of wear and tear have taken their toll on this magnificent structure, 
however, and a complete restoration project is ongoing. The Old State 
House hopes to expand its educational, cultural, and recreational 
services once it finishes a complete renovation.
  Underway are plans to make the entire landmark accessible to the 
handicapped and the elderly. A full center and museum of Connecticut 
history will be created on-site, and there is to be a park and outdoor 
market adjacent to the Old State House.
  The new Old State House is set to be rededicated on its 200th 
birthday in May 1996, when it will once again become a meeting place 
and focal point for the city of Hartford and the entire New England 
community.
  The bill I am introducing today would authorize the issuance of 
700,000, $1 silver coins, which would be emblematic of the Old State 
House and its role in the history of the city of Hartford, the State of 
Connecticut, and the United States. Funds raised through the sale of 
the coins would be spent on both the construction, renovation and 
preservation of the Old State House and on the educational programs 
about its historic significance.
  This cost-neutral bill would raise up to $7 million to help 
underwrite the cost of the Old State House project. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill and help preserve a 
piece of history.
                                 ______

      By Mr. THOMAS:
  S. 1083. A bill to direct the President to withhold extension of the 
WTO Agreement to any country that is not complying with its obligations 
under the New York Convention, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                 THE NEW YORK CONVENTION COMPLIANCE ACT

 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I introduce the New York Convention 
Compliance Act of 1995, a bill designed to protect the investments of 
U.S. companies overseas.
  The New York convention refers to the Convention on the Recognition 
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral 

[[Page S 10828]]
Awards, a multilateral international treaty drafted in New York in 1958 
which the United States joined in 1970. Binding arbitration clauses are 
frequently used in international business contracts to provide prompt 
and inexpensive dispute resolution. Signatories to the convention 
commit themselves to enforcing judgments of foreign arbitration panels 
in their domestic courts. Failure to enforce an arbitration judgment, 
unless based on one of the defenses specified under the convention, in 
my opinion raises an obligation on the part of the offending signatory 
to satisfy the debt at issue.
  Arbitration clauses such as those governed by the convention are 
especially important in countries without a tradition of adhering to 
the rule of law. There, if a conflict arises triggering arbitration a 
neutral third-country forum provides for a resolution free from the 
possible xenophobic biases of local courts and the vagaries of an 
unresponsive judiciary.
  One case in particular of which I am aware illustrates why adherence 
to the convention is so important to stable international trade. On 
June 4, 1988, Ross Engineering Co. of Florida, entered into an 
agreement with the Shanghai Far East Aero-technology Import & Export 
Co. [SFAIC] pursuant to which the latter was to manufacture industrial 
batteries for Ross' subsidiary Revpower with machinery, equipment, raw 
materials and engineering expertise supplied by Revpower. Some time 
afterwards, SFAIC breached two provisions of the agreement and 
effective January 1990 Revpower notified SFAIC that it was cancelling 
the agreement. Revpower then entered into negotiations with SFAIC to 
try to resolve the dispute, with no success.
  Having exhausted its attempts to salvage the agreement, Revpower 
filed an arbitration claim against SFAIC with the Stockholm Chamber of 
Commerce as provided in the agreement. Despite foot-dragging and 
dilatory tactics on the part of SFAIC, on July 13, 1993, a unanimous 
arbitral panel ruled in Revpower's favor and granted it an award of US 
$6.6 million plus interest from 1991. SFAIC has refused to honor the 
award, however, despite its binding agreement to do so. Attempts to 
satisfy the judgment in the Shanghai Intermediate People's Court have 
proved similarly futile, the Court refusing to abide by its own 
regulations and take up the case. Attempts by Secretary Brown, 
Secretary Christopher, the USTR, myself, Senator Connie Mack, and 
countless others to try to get the Chinese to live up to their 
obligations under the convention have proved similarly fruitless. When 
asked directly by our Ambassador to China whether China would honor it, 
Minister Wu Yi replied flatly, ``No.''
  While relatively small in the scheme of the full United States-Sino 
trade relationship, Revpower's award--which has now grown to almost $9 
million--means a great deal to that company and its investors. More 
importantly, perhaps, I believe that it means a great deal more for the 
large number of other American and foreign firms that do business in 
China. Most, if not all, of those companies have arbitration clauses in 
their contracts with the Chinese identical to the one that Revpower 
had. If, as Revpower's experience suggests, foreign companies cannot 
rely on these clauses to resolve disputes effectively and equitably, 
then they and a stable business environment are all at risk. I have 
heard this concern voiced by a growing number of United States 
businessmen, and not just in relation to China but in several other 
countries not presently members of the WTO.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill, and thereby recognize the close relationship between a country's 
respect for the rule of law and international treaty obligations and 
the prospects for its successful participation in the fledgling WTO.
  Yet while on one hand these countries fail to honor the convention, 
on the other they clamor for accession to the World Trade Organization 
[WTO]. But Mr. President, how can they be relied upon to uphold the 
responsibilities incumbent on members if they have shown themselves 
unwilling to live up to the terms of the convention? WTO members have a 
profound and direct interest in ensuring that fellow members fulfill 
their voluntarily-assumed obligations under both the convention and 
GATT. Arbitration clauses such as those contemplated by the convention 
are one of the pillars of international commerce and trade. Its 
observance should be one of the minimum requirements for any nation 
seekins to become a full and equal partner in the international trade 
regime. This bill would provide, therefore, that before the United 
States will support membership for a particular country in the WTO, the 
President must certify that the petitioning country is living up to its 
obligations under the convention.
                                 ______

      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 1084. A bill to provide for the conveyance of the C.S.S. Hunley to 
the State of South Carolina, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


              THE C.S.S. ``HUNLEY'' CONVEYANCE ACT OF 1995

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would provide for the conveyance of the Civil War submarine, the 
C.S.S. Hunley, to the State of South Carolina.
  On February 17, 1864, powered by a hand cranked propeller, the Hunley 
sank a frigate of the Union blockade, the U.S.S. Housatonic, by 
torpedoing a wooden spar loaded with 100 pounds of black powder into 
her side. This marked the first time in history that a warship had been 
destroyed by a submarine. The Hunley vanished following its victory, 
possibly from leaks created by the force of the blast.
  Over 131 years later, the Hunley has been found intact, lying on its 
side, and covered in silt off the coast of Charleston, S.C. There is no 
question that, when raised from its current resting place, this 
national treasure should be displayed in South Carolina. Not only 
should it be made available to the public as the earliest example of 
successful submarine warfare, but also because of its place in southern 
history. The Hunley serves as a memorial to the nine men who perished 
on board fighting passionately for what they believed.
  This legislation simply transfers the title of the Hunley from the 
Federal Government to the State of South Carolina. It is my 
understanding that the State will develop a program to ensure that 
research can be conducted on this historical military relic and that it 
will be properly preserved, stabilized, and displayed.
  Over 30 men died in service to the Hunley.  With the exception of the 
nine crew members that went down on that fateful day, all are buried in 
Magnolia Cemetery in Charleston. The Palmetto State would also like the 
honor of burying these nine valiant men, with full distinction, next to 
their compatriots.
  Mr. President, the C.S.S. Hunley has spent the last 131 years off the 
coast of South Carolina. Passing this legislation will make this Civil 
War treasure a proud and permanent part of our State.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this measure be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1084

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF C.S.S. HUNLEY TO STATE OF SOUTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       (a) Conveyance Required.--The President shall direct the 
     appropriate Federal official to convey to the State of South 
     Carolina, without consideration, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the C.S.S. Hunley, a 
     sunken Confederate submarine located in a harbor in close 
     proximity to Charleston, South Carolina.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The official under subsection 
     (a) may require such terms and conditions in connection with 
     the conveyance under that subsection as the official 
     considers to be necessary to ensure the proper preservation 
     of the C.S.S. Hunley.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Kyl, 
        Mr. Brown, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 1085. A bill to prohibit discrimination and preferential treatment 
on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex with respect to 
Federal employment, contracts, and programs, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

[[Page S 10829]]



                     the equal opportunity act 1995

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this year, I promised to introduce 
legislation to get the Federal Government out of the business of 
dividing Americans, and into the business of uniting Americans.
  Today, I am fulfilling this commitment.
  The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995, which I introduce today, stands 
for a simple proposition: The Federal Government should not 
discriminate against, nor should it grant preferences to, any 
individual because of that individual's race, color, ethnic background, 
or sex.
  Whether it is employment, or contracting, or any other federally 
conducted program, our Government in Washington should work to bring 
its citizens together, not divide us. Our focus should be protecting 
the rights of individuals, not the rights of groups through the use of 
quotas, set-asides, numerical objectives, and other preferences.
  Let me be frank. While I have questioned and opposed group 
preferences in the past, I have also supported them. That is my record, 
and I am not hiding from it.
  But many of us who supported these policies never imagined that
   preferences would become a seemingly permanent fixture in our 
society. They were designed to be temporary remedies, targeted at 
specific problems suffered by specific individuals.

  Unfortunately, during the past 25 years, we have seen the policies of 
preference grow, and grow, and grow some more. Pitting individual 
against individual, group against group, American against American.
  For too many of our citizens, our country is no longer the land of 
opportunity--but a pie chart, where jobs and other benefits are often 
awarded not because of hard work or merit, but because of someone's 
biology.
  We have lost sight of the simple truth that you do not cure 
discrimination with more discrimination.
  I fully expect that the professional civil rights establishment in 
Washington will be out in force denouncing this initiative, defending 
the status quo, and claiming that we are somehow ``turning back the 
clock'' and unraveling decades of civil rights progress.
  And no doubt about it, great progress has been made in the four 
decades since the civil rights revolution began with the landmark Brown 
versus Board of Education decision.
  Countless young men and women of all races attend and graduate from 
our finest universities. Thousands of African-Americans have been 
elected to public office--in Congress, in State legislatures, as mayors 
of our Nation's largest cities, as Governor of Virginia. And Colin 
Powell has inspired us all, rising from the ranks of the
 ROTC to become our Nation's top military official, Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  But for the millions of Americans who each day evade the bullets, 
send their kids to substandard schools, and wade through the dangerous 
shoals of our Nation's underclass, progress seems to be nothing more 
than a mirage. A mirage that fades away, leaving the stark realities of 
life behind.
  And what are those realities?
  The reality is that the national assessment of educational progress 
has released its findings on the reading ability of America's 
graduating high school seniors for 1994. According to the study, only 
12 percent of black high school graduates are proficient in reading. 
Fully 54 percent have below basic reading skills, which means they are 
condemned to 50 more years of life on the bottom rung of the economic 
ladder.
  These children do not need preferences. They need schools that work.
  The reality is that the U.S. Justice Department estimates that 1 out 
of every 21 black men in America today can be expected to be murdered, 
a death rate double that of U.S. soldiers during World War II.
  Last week, 12-year-old Quinton Carter of Queens Village, New York, 
was shot dead in a dispute over 25 cents with a 16-year-old. The 
viciousness of this senseless act is no longer shocking to us because 
children killing other children in arguments over sneakers or other 
items of clothing have become all
 too commonplace.

  These young men and women--the victims of violence--do not need 
preferences. They need more police, more protection from the scourge of 
crime, and laws that keep violent criminals behind bars.
  And, Mr. President, the reality is that millions of children today 
are born into homes without fathers. In some neighborhoods, the out-of-
wedlock birthrate has climbed to a staggering 80 percent. And study 
after study has concluded that children of single parents are far more 
likely than those in two-parent homes to fail in school, or to be a 
victim or perpetrator of crime.
  Again, these children do not need preferences. They do not need a 
set-aside. They need homes, and families and communities that care.
  Mr. President, it is time to stop making government policy by race 
because making government policy by race is a diversion from reality, 
an easy excuse to ignore the problems that affect all Americans, 
whatever their race or heritage may be.
  We must begin by ending the ridiculous pretense of quota tokenism--
special contracts, a set-aside there, a couple of TV stations, a seat 
or two in the Cabinet. This is a band-aid. A diversion. A corruption of 
the principles of individual liberty and equal opportunity upon which 
our country was founded.
  This legislation may not be perfect. And it certainly will not solve 
all our problems. But it is a starting point--a starting point in a 
national
 conversation, not just on the future of affirmative action, but on the 
future of American.

  Mr. President, 12 years ago it was my privilege to serve as floor 
manager for the legislation marking Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, birthday 
as a Federal holiday.
  And in leading off the final debate on that bill, I said these words: 
``A nation defines itself in many ways; in the promises it makes and 
the programs it enacts; the dreams it enshrines or the doors it slams 
shut.''
  A nation also defines itself by how it treats its citizens. Does it 
divide them by focusing on the policies of the past? Or does it unite 
them by focusing on the realities of the present?
  The choice is ours.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the 
Equal Opportunity Act, a section-by-section summary, and statements by 
Dr. William Bennett of Empower America; Milton Bins, chairman of the 
Council of 100; Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity; and 
Brian Jones, president of the Center for New Black Leadership, be 
reprinted in the Record immediately after my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                S. 1085

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Opportunity Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND PREFERENTIAL 
                   TREATMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, neither the 
     Federal Government nor any officer, employee, or department 
     or agency of the Federal Government--
       (1) may intentionally discriminate against, or may grant a 
     preference to, any individual or group based in whole or in 
     part on race, color, national origin, or sex, in connection 
     with--
       (A) a Federal contract or subcontract;
       (B) Federal employment; or
       (C) any other federally conducted program or activity;
       (2) may require or encourage any Federal contractor or 
     subcontractor to intentionally discriminate against, or grant 
     a preference to, any individual or group based in whole or in 
     part on race, color, national origin, or sex; or
       (3) may enter into a consent decree that requires, 
     authorizes, or permits any activity prohibited by paragraph 
     (1) or (2).

     SEC. 3. RECRUITMENT AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF BIDS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit or limit 
     any effort by the Federal Government or any officer, 
     employee, or department or agency of the Federal Government--
       (1) to recruit qualified women or qualified minorities into 
     an applicant pool for Federal employment or to encourage 
     businesses owned by women or by minorities to bid for Federal 
     contracts or subcontracts, if such recruitment or 
     encouragement does not involve using a numerical objective, 
     or otherwise granting a preference, based in whole or in part 
     on race, color, national origin, or sex, 

[[Page S 10830]]
     in selecting any individual or group for the relevant employment, 
     contract or subcontract, benefit, opportunity, or program; or
       (2) to require or encourage any Federal contractor or 
     subcontractor to recruit qualified women or qualified 
     minorities into an applicant pool for employment or to 
     encourage businesses owned by women or by minorities to bid 
     for Federal contracts or subcontracts, if such requirement or 
     encouragement does not involve using a numerical objective, 
     or otherwise granting a preference, based in whole or in part 
     on race, color, national origin, or sex, in selecting any 
     individual or group for the relevant employment, contract or 
     subcontract, benefit, opportunity, or program.

     SEC. 4. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Historically Black Colleges and Universities.--Nothing 
     in this Act shall be construed to prohibit or limit any act 
     that is designed to benefit an institution that is a 
     historically Black college or university on the basis that 
     the institution is a historically Black college or 
     university.
       (b) Indian Tribes.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to prohibit or limit any action taken--
       (1) pursuant to a law enacted under the constitutional 
     powers of Congress relating to the Indian tribes; or
       (2) under a treaty between an Indian tribe and the United 
     States.
       (c) Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, Privacy, and 
     National Security Concerns.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prohibit or limit any classification based on 
     sex if--
       (1) sex is a bona fide occupational qualification 
     reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Federal 
     Government entity or Federal contractor or subcontractor 
     involved;
       (2) the classification is designed to protect the privacy 
     of individuals; or
       (3)(A) the occupancy of the position for which the 
     classification is made, or access to the premises in or on 
     which any part of the duties of such position is performed or 
     is to be performed, is subject to any requirement imposed in 
     the interest of the national security of the United States 
     under any security program in effect pursuant to or 
     administered under any Act or any Executive order of the 
     President; or
       (B) the classification is applied with respect to a member 
     of the Armed Forces serving on active duty in a theatre of 
     combat operations (as determined by the Secretary of 
     Defense).

     SEC. 5. COMPLIANCE REVIEW OF POLICIES AND REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the head of each department or agency of the Federal 
     Government, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall 
     review all existing policies and regulations that such 
     department or agency head is charged with administering, 
     modify such policies and regulations to conform to the 
     requirements of this Act, and report to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate the results of the review and 
     any modifications to the policies and regulations.

     SEC. 6. REMEDIES.

       (a) In General.--In any action involving a violation of 
     this Act, a court may award only injunctive or equitable 
     relief (including but not limited to back pay), a reasonable 
     attorney's fee, and costs.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any remedy available under any other law.

     SEC. 7. EFFECT ON PENDING MATTERS.

       (a) Pending Cases.--This Act shall not affect any case 
     pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Pending Contracts, Subcontracts, and Consent Decrees.--
     This Act shall not affect any contract, subcontract, or 
     consent decree in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, including any option exercised under such contract or 
     subcontract before or after such date of enactment.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Federal government.--The term ``Federal Government'' 
     means the executive and legislative branches of the 
     Government of the United States.
       (2) Grant a preference.--The term ``grant a preference'' 
     means use of any preferential treatment and includes but is 
     not limited to any use of a quota, set-aside, numerical goal, 
     timetable, or other numerical objective.
       (3) Historically black college or university.--The term 
     ``historically Black college or university'' means a part B 
     institution, as defined in section 322(2) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)).
                                                                    ____

     Section-by-Section Summary--The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995

       The purpose of this Act is to ensure that all Americans are 
     treated equally by the Federal government in Federal 
     employment, Federal contracting and subcontracting, and 
     Federally-conducted programs. This Act furthers the cause of 
     equal opportunity and non-discrimination by embracing the 
     view that rights inhere in individuals, not in groups.
       This Act endorses those Federal ``affirmative action'' 
     programs that are designed to recruit broadly and widen the 
     opportunities for competition, without guaranteeing the 
     results of the competition or resorting to preferences on the 
     basis of race, color, national origin, or sex. However, the 
     Act would prohibit those Federal ``affirmative action'' 
     programs that seek to divide Americans through the use of 
     quotas, set-asides, timetables, goals, and other preferences.
       Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 provides that the Act may 
     be cited as the ``Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.''
       Section 2. Prohibition against Discrimination and 
     Preferential Treatment. Section 2 prohibits the Federal 
     government or any officer, employee, or agency of the Federal 
     government from intentionally discriminating against, or 
     granting a preference to, any individual or group, in whole 
     or in part, on the basis of race, color, national origin, or 
     sex. This prohibition applies to Federal employment, 
     contracting, subcontracting, and the administration of 
     Federally-conducted programs. The use of race, color, 
     national origin, or sex ``in part'' (i.e., as one factor) in 
     a hiring or promotion decision, a contract or subcontract 
     award, or a decision to admit a person to a Federal program, 
     is forbidden by Section 2. When race, ethnicity, or sex is 
     used as a so-called ``plus'' factor in determining the 
     outcome of a decision, that is a preference.
       Section 2 also explicitly prohibits the Federal government 
     or any officer, employee, or agency of the Federal government 
     from requiring or encouraging any Federal contractor or 
     subcontractor intentionally to discriminate against, or grant 
     a preference to, any individual or group, in whole or in 
     part, on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex.
       As originally conceived, Executive order 11246 equated 
     ``affirmative action'' with the principle of non-
     discrimination. Pursuant to Executive Order 11246, each 
     Federal contractor is required to agree that it ``will not 
     discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment 
     because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'' 
     and that the contractor ``will take affirmative action to 
     ensure that applicants are
      employed . . . without regard to their race, color, 
     religion, sex, or national origin.'' Unfortunately, 
     bureaucratic implementation of the Executive Order over a 
     period of years has converted it from a program aimed at 
     eliminating discrimination to one which relies on it in 
     the form of preferences. Section 2 aims not to overturn 
     Executive Order 11246, but to restore its original meaning 
     and purpose.
       Section 2 also forbids the Federal government from entering 
     into a consent decree that requires, authorizes, or permits 
     any preferences otherwise forbidden by this Act.
       Section 2(1)(c) applies to programs wholly administered by 
     the Federal government. Nothing in Section 2, nor anything in 
     this Act, affects programs or activities merely receiving 
     Federal financial assistance. For example, Title IX of the 
     Education Amendments of 1972, prohibiting discrimination in 
     Federally-assisted education programs, is unaffected by this 
     Act. In addition, this Act does not affect the Voting Rights 
     Act or its enforcement.
       Section 2 does not forbid preferences on any basis other 
     than race, color, national origin, or sex. Thus, a preference 
     in contracting based on economic criteria, the size of the 
     company seeking the contracting business, veteran's status, 
     or some other neutral social criteria is not forbidden by 
     this Act, so long as every American has an equal opportunity 
     to meet the criteria without regard to race, color, national 
     origin, or sex.
       In addition, Section 2 does not forbid state and local 
     governments or private entities, including Federal 
     contractors or recipients of Federal financial assistance, 
     from voluntarily engaging in racial, ethnic, or gender 
     preferences that are otherwise permitted by law. Moreover, 
     nothing in this Act affects a court's remedial authority 
     under any other statute. Although this Act aims at reforming 
     only the executive and legislative branches of the Federal 
     government, it should not be construed as expressing implicit 
     approval of preferences granted by other entities or in 
     remedial court orders.
       Section 3. Recruitment and Encouragement of Bids. Section 3 
     provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to 
     prohibit or limit any effort by the Federal government 1) to 
     recruit qualified members of minority groups or women, so 
     long as A) no numerical recruitment goals are set, and B) 
     there is no preference granted in the actual award of a job, 
     promotion, contract, or other opportunity, or 2) to require 
     the same recruitment of its contractors and subcontractors, 
     so long as the Federal government does not require numerical 
     recruitment goals or preferences in the actual award of the 
     benefit.
       All affirmative steps required by Federal agencies of their 
     contractors and subcontractors, otherwise authorized by law 
     and consistent with this Act, remain lawful under this Act. 
     For
      example, Federal agency requirements that contractors cast 
     their recruiting nets widely remain valid, so long as such 
     agencies do not require contractors to set numerical 
     racial, ethnic, and gender objectives for recruitment and 
     do not require actual hiring or other employment decisions 
     to be made, in whole or in part, with regard to color, 
     ethnicity, or sex. Consistent with these conditions, for 
     example, Federal agencies can require a contractor to: 
     send notices of its job opportunities to organizations, if 
     available, with large numbers of minorities or women in 
     their membership; include educational institutions with 
     large numbers of 

[[Page S 10831]]
     minorities and women among the educational institutions at which the 
     contractor recruits; and spend a portion of the budget it 
     uses to advertise its job opportunities with media 
     outlets, if available, that are specially targeted to 
     reach minorities and women.
       Section 4. Rules of Construction. Section 4(a) provides 
     that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit or 
     limit Federal assistance to a historically Black college or 
     university on the basis that the institution is an 
     historically black college or university.
       Historically Black colleges and universities were founded 
     as a response to the intentional exclusion of African-
     Americans from institutions of higher learning, both public 
     and private. These institutions are open to students of all 
     races on a non-discriminatory basis. Thus, Federal assistance 
     to historically Black colleges and universities is not a 
     ``preference'' for purposes of this Act.
       Section 4(b) provides that nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to prohibit or limit any action taken (1) pursuant 
     to a law enacted under the constitutional powers of Congress 
     relating to the Indian tribes, or (2) under a treaty between 
     an Indian tribe and the United States.
       Section 4(c) provides that nothing in the Act shall be 
     construed to prohibit or limit gender classifications that 
     are bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably 
     necessary to the normal operation of the Federal government 
     entity or Federal contractor involved. The courts have 
     determined that bona fide occupational qualifications may 
     apply to jobs such as prison guards or occupations raising 
     similar privacy concerns.
       Section 4(c) also provides that nothing in the Act shall be 
     construed to prohibit or limit gender classifications that 
     (1) are designed to protect the privacy of individuals, (2) 
     are adopted for reasons of national security, or (3) involve 
     combat-related functions.
       Section 5. Compliance Review of Policies and Regulations. 
     Section 5 establishes a compliance review procedure: Within 1 
     year of the date of enactment, the head of each department 
     and agency of the Federal government, in consultation with 
     the
      Attorney General, must (1) review all existing policies and 
     regulations for which the department or agency head is 
     charged with administering, (2) modify those policies and 
     regulations to conform to the requirements of this Act, 
     and (3) report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives the results of the 
     review and any modifications to the policies and 
     regulations.
       Section 6. Remedies. Section 6(1) outlines the remedies for 
     those who have been aggrieved by violations of the Act. These 
     remedies are limited to injunctive or equitable relief 
     (including but not limited to back pay), a reasonable 
     attorney's fee, and costs. Section 6(2) provides that nothing 
     in this section shall be construed to affect any remedy 
     available under any other law.
       Section 7. Effect on Pending Cases. Section 7(a) provides 
     that nothing in this Act affects any case pending on the date 
     of enactment of this Act. Section 7(b) provides that nothing 
     in this Act shall affect any contract, subcontract, or 
     consent decree in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, including any option exercised under such contract or 
     subcontract before or after such date of enactment.
       Section 8. Definitions. Section 8(1) defines the term 
     ``Federal Government'' to mean the executive and legislative 
     branches of the Government of the United States.
       Section 8(2) defines the term ``grant a preference'' to 
     mean use of any preferential treatment and includes the use 
     of a quota, set-aside, numerical goal, timetable, or other 
     numerical objective.
       ``Numerical objectives'' have an inherently coercive 
     effect. They exert an inevitable pressure to take into 
     consideration the characteristic which is the subject of the 
     numerical objective. The degree of pressure or coercion turns 
     in part on the consequences that may follow, or may 
     reasonably be expected to follow, the failure to achieve the 
     objective. When established or induced by the government, 
     these consequences can include increased government scrutiny 
     or the threat of it, more paperwork, on-site investigations, 
     the inability to bid for a contract, or financial or other 
     penalties.
       Consequently, it is not enough to oppose ``quotas,'' as if 
     the label itself is the offending practice. It is the 
     practice and mechanism of racial, ethnic, and gender 
     preference, not its particular label in a given circumstance, 
     that is objectionable.
       Moreover, preferences can consist of other practices not 
     tied to numerical objectives. For example, if a Federal 
     agency were to advise its supervisors that proposing to hire 
     a person not in a designated racial, ethnic, or gender group 
     will subject that proposed hiring decision to closer scrutiny 
     than the proposed hiring of a member of such designated 
     groups, this act would be a preference.
       Section 8(3) defines the term ``historically Black college 
     or university'' to mean a Part B institution, as defined in 
     section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1061(2)).
                                                                    ____

 Written Statement of William J. Bennett, the Equal Opportunity Act of 
                                  1995

       I congratulate Senator Dole and Congressman Canady for 
     their introduction of ``The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.''
       This legislation is both significant and morally serious. 
     It re-dedicates this country to the noble proposition that 
     America ought to be a color-blind society. Racism and 
     discrimination are still ugly stains on the American 
     landscape, and where they occur, we need to use existing laws 
     to stamp them out. Republicans need to be principled, not 
     politically opportunistic, when addressing the issue of race. 
     And race should never be used as a ``wedge issue'' in any 
     campaign.
       That said, Republicans should be confident and unambiguous 
     in articulating the case for a color-blind society and 
     against race-based preferences. Counting by race is noxious. 
     It has divided and balkanized this country. If we continue to 
     count by race, hire by race, admit by race, and keep calling 
     attention to race, we will divide by race. Since the 
     implementation of preference programs, we have moved away 
     from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision of a society where we 
     are judged by the ``content of our character'' and not by the 
     ``color of our skin.'' It is time to return to the American 
     ideal that we are one people. The best way to achieve a 
     color-blind society is actually to be a color-blind society, 
     in law and spirit.
       The Dole-Canady legislation puts the federal government on 
     the moral high ground on civil rights. If this legislation 
     passes, the federal government can no longer engage in 
     preferential-treatment practices that result in reverse 
     discrimination. The federal government can no longer take 
     race, gender, or ethnicity into account in its employment or 
     contracting practices, or in the implementation of any 
     federally-conducted program or activity. Instead, all people, 
     regardless of race or gender, will be guaranteed justice and 
     equal protection when dealing with the federal government.
       There is still more work to be done. But the Dole-Canady 
     bill is a very good start. It is consistent with American 
     principles. This is important legislation; it deserves to be 
     passed.
                                                                    ____

                                 Center for Equal Opportunity,

                                                    July 26, 1995.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: After 25 years of racial and gender 
     preferences for minorities and women, the time has come to 
     begin treating Americans as individuals rather than as 
     members of groups. Most Americans now reject the specious 
     categorization and double standards so pervasive in public 
     employment, government contracting, and university 
     admissions. They want a return to the simple principle of 
     non-discrimination embedded in the 1964 Civil Rights Act: 
     ``Nothing . . . shall be interpreted to require . . . 
     preferential treatment [be granted] to any individual or any 
     group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national 
     origin on such individual or group.''
       Americans have waited long enough for non-discrimination on 
     the basis of race and sex to mean exactly what it says. Your 
     longstanding commitment to colorblind equal opportunity 
     provides me with great hope that we will soon see this day, 
     and your bill is an important first step in this fight. I 
     applaud your courage and know that you will continue to apply 
     your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Linda Chavez.
                                                                    ____

           Statement of Milton Bins, Chairman, Council of 100

       The Council of 100, a national network of African American 
     Republicans founded in 1974, applauds the leadership and 
     measured approach taken by Sen. Bob Dole today in introducing 
     the ``Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.'' This act provides a 
     unifying and coherent framework in which to foster inclusion 
     and equal opportunity for all Americans without 
     discriminating against any American on the basis of race, 
     color, national origin or sex.
       The long-delayed national conversation about the role of 
     the federal government in promoting equal opportunity will 
     now take place where it should: in the Congress of the United 
     States. It is time for the American people to speak through 
     their elected representatives as we build a new national 
     consensus in support of inclusion, fairness and equal 
     protection of the law.
       A fair reading of the act will allay concerns that the 
     legislation represents the ``opening salvo'' of a Republican-
     led assault on affirmative action, and is part of a plan to 
     roll back the gains African Americans in particular have made 
     over the past 30 years. Rather, its purpose is to remove a 
     major roadblock--group preferences--that divide and Balkanize 
     Americans along racial, ethnic and gender lines as we 
     struggle to build an opportunity society for all of us.
       The act calls for vigorous enforcement of nondiscrimination 
     laws. It leaves in place remedies to redress discrimination 
     available under any law, including the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964. It does not prohibit voluntary efforts such as minority 
     outreach and recruitment. In fact, casting a wider net to 
     increase the pool of qualified applicants is expressly 
     encouraged. The act also exempts historically black colleges 
     and universities in recognition of their unique role in 
     fostering educational opportunities for all Americans.
       The myopic fixation on past wrongs that can never be 
     righted and on remedies that have had limited impact on 
     expanding employment and business opportunities keep African 
     Americans looking backwards. While we ``cannot escape 
     history,'' we do not have to be trapped by our history. As 
     Frederick Douglass said, ``We have to do with the past only 
     as we can make it useful to the present 

[[Page S 10832]]
     and to the future.'' We believe the future will belong to those who are 
     prepared and who are willing to compete in a knowledge-based, 
     global economy.
       Today begins the hard work of formulating a new paradigm 
     for equal opportunity for all Americans. The Council of 100 
     looks forward to working with Sen. Dole as he points us 
     toward the future with the ``Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.''
                                                                    ____

                              Center for New Black Leadership,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1995.

                     Equal Opportunity Act of 1995

       Senator Dole's introduction of the Equal Opportunity Act of 
     1995 is an important first step in restoring the 
     nondiscrimination principle to American civil rights law.
       Racially preferential public policy is not only unfair to 
     members of nonpreferred groups but also to many of its 
     ostensible beneficiaries. When our public policy suggests 
     that members of certain races, taken as an undifferentiated 
     whole, are incapable of competing without the helping hand of 
     the state, our leaders send a dangerously stereotypical 
     message to the larger society.
       To be sure, state-sanctioned categorization of people based 
     upon race and gender may once have been a practical tool for 
     remedying manifest disadvantage resulting from systematic 
     exclusion of groups from the American mainstream. Today, 
     however, race and gender are simply insufficient proxies for 
     disadvantage. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and 
     destructive.
       We can restore the moral foundation of civil rights policy 
     in two ways. First, by confronting and punishing acts of 
     discrimination where they exist. The acknowledgment that 
     discrimination remains a factor of life for too many 
     Americans must stiffen our resolve to deal with the problem 
     constructively. However, such an acknowledgment need not 
     inevitably lead to categorical racial and gender preference.
       Instead, our leaders must deal forthrightly with the very 
     real economic and cultural problems confronting many of 
     America's poorest communities today. The tragic circumstances 
     of the truly disadvantaged should be acknowledged and 
     accommodated when appropriate. However, the suggestion that 
     race and disadvantage are inextricably linked is insidious in 
     its effect.
       American public policy must move beyond the era of 
     stereotypical racial and gender categories, toward an era 
     that demands that similarly situated individuals, regardless 
     of race or gender, compete under the same standard. Senator 
     Dole's bill quite rightly moves us in that direction by 
     removing federal policy from the thicket of racial and gender 
     double standards.
                                                   Brian W. Jones,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                    Independent Women's Forum,

                                                    July 27, 1995.
     Hon. Robert J. Dole,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dole: The Independent Women's Forum commends 
     you and Congressman Canady for your action today. The Equal 
     Opportunity Act of 1995 will insure an historic debate about 
     how to expand the economy and create opportunities for all 
     Americans. Preferences, set-asides, and quotas do not create 
     jobs or opportunities--they create bitterness, division, 
     hostility and disrespect. The Independent Women's Forum has 
     long realized that, although women have benefited by so-
     called affirmative action, at many times it was at the 
     expense of minorities, our brothers, husbands, and other 
     loved ones. The time has come to rethink whether the social 
     implications of these programs have not done more damage than 
     good. The Independent Women's Forum looks forward to engaging 
     in this discussion.
           Most respectfully,
                                                Barbara J. Ledeen,
                                    Executive Director for Policy.
     

                          ____________________