[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

<bullet> 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.<bullet>
______

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.

____________________