[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1362-1363]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT--S. RES 23

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, on Wednesday, the administration made a 
decision to oppose the University of Michigan's efforts to promote 
diversity on the campus. In making the announcement, the administration 
said that Michigan's process amounted to a quota, and that the 
university should look at other factors, such as economic and 
geographic backgrounds. Their statement ignores the fact that both of 
those factors, as well as others, are considered by the university and 
given the same weight as race.
  I have made clear on other occasions what I and many of my colleagues 
believe: The Michigan system is not a quota; the Michigan system is 
constitutional; and that President Bush made the wrong decision. Racial 
and ethnic diversity in our Nation's institutions of higher education 
is an important goal.
  A student body that reflects the diversity of America is a valuable 
resource for all of our students. But kind words and lofty rhetoric 
alone cannot open the doors of educational opportunity or guarantee a 
diverse student body.
  We must show our commitment through our actions. That is why today I 
am asking consent that we adopt a resolution that supports the 
University of Michigan. This resolution states that the Senate supports 
the university's attempts to create a racially and ethnically diverse 
student body and directs the Senate legal counsel to file an amicus 
brief on behalf of the entire Senate in support.
  By adopting this resolution, we can show with our actions, not just 
our words, that we truly believe in the importance of racial and ethnic 
diversity. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort and 
support, certainly not stand in the way, of the resolution.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 23 and that the 
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution 
and preamble be agreed to, en bloc; and that the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I think all of us in the Senate would 
love to see equal opportunity for all students. One of the great 
advances we have made is to eliminate discrimination--formal 
discrimination--that we

[[Page 1363]]

had in this country for a long time against people of color, but I do 
not believe the answer to that is by instituting something that, in 
fact, discriminates the other way. That is what the University of 
Michigan system does, to give someone, because of the color of their 
skin, 20 points toward the admission score and someone with a perfect 
SAT score--to me the values that the admission process should consider 
are where the person came from, the obstacles they had to overcome in 
their lives, their economic condition, and their family situation.
  There are many issues that are intangibles that should be considered 
in an admissions process. But when you compare this young girl from 
Michigan, who was the plaintiff in this case, who happens to be white 
and has overcome a lot in her life to reach the point where she could 
apply to the University of Michigan and potentially be accepted, and 
you may have someone who happens to be Hispanic or African American and 
may have come from a privileged background, went to the finest private 
schools, and for them to get an advantage over someone who scratched 
and clawed through a very difficult situation seems to be unfair.
  What the administration has done is tried to focus, as the President 
did at the University of Texas when he was Governor of Texas, on trying 
to provide opportunity for all without putting forward discriminatory 
impediments to people simply because of their gender, their ethnic 
background, or their race.
  To me, it is an opportunity-based system for people who have had a 
disadvantaged life and I believe is a healing balm on this very 
difficult undertone of racism that we have seen in this country.
  Madam President, I think the administration is moving in a positive 
direction, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I do not know what the agenda is. I 
know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has a different opinion.
  Maybe the Democratic leader decided we are not going to be dealing 
with the appropriations bill. We have an amendment on which we are 
getting ready to vote. We were supposed to vote on it a couple of 
minutes ago. I guess people want to debate the Michigan case, but that 
is really not the issue before us. The issue before us is an 
appropriations bill.
  Eleven out of the thirteen appropriations bills have not been passed. 
We are trying to finish the appropriations bills. The chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee is trying to move the Senate forward. He has 
been asking for amendments. We are trying to consider amendments. We 
are getting ready to vote on an amendment, and the Democratic leader 
has a resolution that says: We want to adopt a position opposite that 
of the President of the United States on the Michigan case, without 
even advanced warning and without allowing the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, who also has a resolution taking a different 
position, to come forward.
  There is a time and place to debate it, but this is not it. We should 
be doing the business we have not completed from last year, and that is 
the appropriations bill. I have a resolution, and I can do exactly what 
the Democratic leader did. I can ask unanimous consent that we take the 
plaintiff's side of this case and ask that it would pass. I know it 
would be objected to. It was actually drafted by Senator Hatch, so I 
will leave that to him to elect to do.
  It is kind of a waste of the Senate's time for people to take a 
contentious issue and say: I am going to ask unanimous consent that we 
take one side of that issue and try to pass it, knowing it would not 
pass. I could make this same argument and know it would not pass. I 
think we would be wasting the Senate's time.
  I urge our colleagues to stay with the regular order and finish the 
work we did not do last year, and that would be to deal with the 
amendments that are pending and pass the unfinished business of the 
appropriations bills.
  I shall not ask unanimous consent at this point, but if people want 
to pursue this, we can.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________