You are on page 1of 3

S12420

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE

Subsequently, in the 104th Congress,


he assumed the chairmanship of the
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and
South Asian Affairs, and conducted a
remarkable number of hearings on
matters relating to the area. I was especially pleased that he shared my
strong and long-standing interest in
the India subcontinent.
While we frequently found ourselves
on different sides of the issues, I always appreciated the great good humor
that HANK BROWN brought to his work
on the committee, along with his unflagging energy. I thank him for that,
and wish him well in all that lies ahead
for him and his family. He is a fine
man and one for whom I have high regard.

SOME PARTING THOUGHTS


Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as I approach the end of my sixth term in the
Senate, I look back at the 36 years
with wonder and awe at what we have
passed through, but with some concern
for the future of our institutions in the
century ahead.
My concern is rooted in apprehension
that human nature may not be keeping
pace with the means now at our disposal to influence opinion and effect
change.
A long range, telescopic view of our
place in history puts this concern in
perspective, particularly as we approach the end of the second millennium. The thousand years that began
with a tradition of chivalry in dank
Medieval castles, ends with a distinctly
unchivalrous, albeit more comfortable,
world community tied together by the
instant miracle of electronic communication and jet flight, but overshadowed by the still lingering threat
of mass destruction.
Considering these extremes, I am led
to reflect that the rules of human behavior in the conduct of public affairs
have not developed as rapidly as the
provisions for human comfort, or the
means of communicationor indeed, of
mass destruction.
Sometimes, it almost seems, to paraphrase a common humorous expression,
as though we should stop the world
and let the human spirit catch up with
technological progress. So now I ask
myself what guidance can we give to
those who follow that would help them,
short of stopping the world, to reconcile the realities of the day with the
realm of the spirit?
When I came to the Senate in 1961, it
was, in retrospect, a time of almost unlimited possibilities. Most of us were
imbued with a rather exuberant mindset conditioned by recent events. We
had lived through the economic crises
of the 1930s and we had survived the
cataclysm of World War II, and in both
cases it had been the dominant role of
a strong central government which had
saved the day. So it was not surprising
that we brought with us a great sense
of confidence in the role of government.

We extended that faith in progressive


government into many other areas, and
I believe we did many good things in
its name in the years that followed. I
am very proud of the fact that I was
able to play a modest part in these endeavors, particularly in the field of
education.
But hovering over us for the three
decades that followed was the numbing
specter of the cold war that tested our
endurance and our nerve. It was in the
peripheral engagements of the cold
war, first Korea and then, most conclusively, in Vietnam, that the basic tenets of our commitment were put to
the test. And in the latter event, they
were found wanting in the minds and
hearts of many of us.
In retrospect, it may well have been
the widespread disillusionment with
foreign policy in the Vietnam era
which sowed the seeds of a broader cynicism which seems to be abroad in the
land today. And with it came an end to
that sense of unlimited possibilities
that many of us brought to public life.
Many other factors have contributed
to that current of cynicism, but primary among them, in my view, is the
impact of the electronic media, particularly in its treatment of politics
and public affairs. At its worst, it glorifies sensationalism, thrives on superficiality and raises false expectations,
often by holding people in public life
accountable to standards which are frequently unrealistic or simply not relevant.
Unfortunately, the rise of the electronic media has coincided with the
coming of age of a new generation of
Americans which is both blessed and
challenged by the absence of the unifying force of a clear national adversary.
I am reminded, in this connection, of
Shakespeares reference to the cankers of a calm world and a long peace,
referring to the age of Henry IV, when
a temporary absence of conflict had an
adverse effect on the quality of recruits
pressed into military service. In our
time, the sudden ending of the cold war
removed what had been a unifying national threat, leaving in its wake a
vacuum of purpose which I fear has
been filled in part by the cankers of the
electronic media.
The result has been a climate which
exploits the natural confrontational
atmosphere of the democratic process
by accentuating extremes without
elaborating on the less exciting details.
It is a climate which encourages pandering to the lowest levels of public
and private greed, a prime example of
which is the almost universal defamation of the taxing power which makes
it virtually impossible to conduct a rational public debate over revenue policy.
The times call for a renewed sense of
moral responsibility in public service,
and for service performed with courage
of conviction. To be sure, this is not a
new idea. One of my favorite political
quotations in this regard is an excerpt
from a speech by Edmund Burke to the
Electors of Bristol in 1774:

October 21, 1996

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it
to your opinion.

It must be noted that Mr. Burke was


thrown out of office not long after
making this speech, demonstrating a
courage of conviction on his part and
on the part of the electors as well. But
he stands as a model, nonetheless, of
the sort of selfless dedication to principle which must be brought to bear in
the current climate.
Beyond individual virtue, I believe
we must strive in a corporate sense for
a qualitative change in public dialog. If
I could have one wish for the future of
our country in the new millennium, it
would be that we not abandon the traditional norms of behavior that are the
underpinning of our democratic system.
Comity and civility, transcending
differences of party and ideology, have
always been crucial elements in making Government an effective and constructive instrument of public will. But
in times such as these, when there is
fundamental disagreement about the
role of Government, it is all the more
essential that we preserve the spirit of
civil discourse.
It has been distressing of late to hear
the complaints of those who would
abandon public service because they
find the atmosphere mean spirited.
They seem to suggest that the basic
rules of civilized behavior have been
stifled.
They make a good point, although I
hasten to say that this was not a consideration in my own decision to retire
at the end of my present term. After
more than 35 years, I have some to expect a certain amount of rancor in the
legislative process. But I certainly
agree that it seems to have gotten out
of bounds.
I say this with all respect for my colleagues in the Senate. They are wonderfully talented men and women,
dedicated to serving their constituents
and to improving the quality of our national life. I do not expect to have the
good fortune again to work with such a
fine, well-motivated and able group.
But even this exceptional group sometimes yields to the virus of discontent
which has infected the body politic.
In 1995, before retiring from the Senate to become president of the University of Oklahoma, my good friend
David Boren sent a letter to his colleagues lamenting the fact that we
have become so partisan and so personal in our attacks upon each other
that we can no longer effectively work
together in the natural interest. It
was a thoughtful warning that has
meaning far beyond the U.S. Senate
and applies to our whole national political dialog.
The fact is that the democratic process depends on respectful disagreement. As soon as we confuse civil debate with reckless disparagement, we
have crippled the process. A breakdown
of civility reinforces extremism and

October 21, 1996

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE

discourages the hard process of negotiating across party lines to reach a


broad-based consensus.
The Founding Fathers who prescribed the ground rules for debate in
Congress certainly had all these considerations in mind. We address each
other in the third person with what
seems like elaborate courtesy. The purpose, of course, is to remind us constantly that whatever the depth of our
disagreements, we are all common instruments of the democratic process.
Some of that spirit, I believe, needs
to be infused into the continuing national debate that takes place outside
the Halls of Congress. It should be absorbed by our political parties and it
should be respected by the media, particularly in this era of electronic information. The democratic process is not
well served by spin doctors and sound
bites.
Nor is it well served by blustering assertions of no compromise, such as
those we heard in the wake of the 1994
congressional elections. David Boren
had the temerityand wisdomto suggest that instead of holding weekly
meetings to plot how to outsmart each
other, the party caucuses in the Senate
should hold two meetings a month to
explore bipartisan solutions on pending
issues. Again, its another good idea
which could apply to the national dialog.
I would only add my own prescription
for comity, which can be summarized
in three simple rules:
First, never respond to an adversary
in ad hominem terms. In my six campaigns for the Senate, I have never resorted to negative advertising. The
electorate seems to have liked that approach, since they have given me an
average margin of victory of 64 percent.
Second, always let the other fellow
have your way. I have always found
that winning an ally is far more important than getting exclusive credit. In
politics, the best way to convince
someone is to lead him or her to discover what you already know.
Third, sometimes, half a loaf can feed
an army. The democratic process is
meant to be slow and deliberate, and
change is hard to achieve. Very often,
achievement of half of an objective is
just as significant as achievement of
100 percent. And it may make it easier
to achieve the rest later.
In Government, as in all endeavors,
it is the end result that countswhether that result is half a loaf or more.
Hopefully, an increase in comity and
civility, together with renewed emphasis on moral responsibility, will result
in a qualitative improvement in end results.
In that regard, I have been guided
throughout my Senate career by a simple motto and statement of purpose. It
is a mantra of just seven words:
TRANSLATE IDEAS INTO ACTION AND HELP
PEOPLE

There have been some days, to be


sure, when neither of these objectives

has been achieved, but week after week


and year after year, I have found those
words to be useful guideposts for a legislative career. They help one sort the
wheat from the chaff.
And they also are a constant reminder that our role is to produce results in the form of sound legislation,
and not engage in endless and repetitive debate that leads nowhere. This is
an especially hard prescription for the
U.S. Senate, comprised as it is of 100
coequal Members, each representing a
sovereign State. Everyone has a right
to speak at length.
But there are some limits. And a
principal one is the Senates rule that
debate can be curtailed by invoking
cloture, if three-fifths of the Members,
or 60 Senators, vote to do so. It has
been my general policy to vote for cloture, regardless of party or issue, except when there were very compelling
circumstances to the contrary. Over
my Senate career I have cost more
than 350 votes for cloture, which may
be something of a record.
It should be noted that circumstances have changed greatly since
the Senate imposed the cloture rule
back in 1917. In those days, there were
genuine filibusters with marathon
speeches that often kept the Senate in
continuous session for days, including
all night sessions with cots set up in
the lobbies. Nowadays, such displays of
endurance virtually never occur, but at
the very threat of extended debate, the
60-vote requirement is invoked to see if
the minority has enough votes to prevail against itand if they do, the
pending bill is often pulled down and
set aside.
The 60-vote margin, which originally
was set even higher at two-thirds of
those present, was designed to protect
the minoritys right to make itself
heard, while still providing a vehicle
for curbing debate. Only a super majority can impose limits. But as time and
practice have evolved, the other side of
the coin has revealed itselfnamely
that a willful minority of 40 or more
Senators can use the cloture rule to
block legislative progress. Recent majority leaders of both parties have expressed frustration with the deadlocks
that can result.
The ultimate solution, of course,
might be to outlaw all super majorities, except for those specifically allowed by the Constitutionsuch as
veto overrides, treaty approvals and
impeachment verdicts. Since the Constitution carefully provides for these
specific exceptions, it might be assumed that the Framers intended that
all other business should be transacted
by a simple majority.
I must hasten to say that while I find
the logic of such an ultimate solution
to be intriguing, I do not subscribe to
it. As a Senator from the smallest
State, I have always been sensitive to
the fact that circumstances could arise
in which I would need the special protection of minority rights which is accorded by the cloture rule.

S12421

One possible solution which certainly


bears future consideration is a compromise recently proposed by Senator
TOM HARKIN. Under his plan, the existing cloture rule would be modified by
providing that if the three-fifth is not
obtained on the first try, the margin be
reduced progressively on subsequent
cloture votes on the same bill over a
period of time until only a simple majority would be required to shut off debate. Such a plan would protect the minority but would do so within reasonable limits of time, after which the majority could conduct the business of the
Senate.
With reasonable reforms in the cloture rule, and with a new spirit of comity and civility along with a renewed
sense of responsible public service, I do
believe the Senate, and our institutions of government in general, can
rise to the challenges of the new century. And in doing so, they hopefully
will address more satisfactorily than
we have done so far some of the truly
compelling issues of our timessuch as
economic disparity and racial and social inequality.
Over the years, I have thought time
and again of the historical comparison
between Sparta and Athens. Sparta is
known historically for its ability to
wage war, and little more. Athens,
however, is known for its immense contributions to culture and civilization.
In all that I have done over the past
36 years in the U.S. Senate, I have had
that comparison uppermost in mind. I
believe deeply that when the full history of our Nation is recorded, it is
critical that we be known as an Athens, and not a Sparta.
My efforts in foreign relations have
been guided accordingly. I believe that
instead of our ability to wage war, we
should be known for our ability to
bring peace. Having been the first and
only nation to use a nuclear weapon,
we should be known as the nation that
brought an end to the spread of nuclear
weapons. We should be known as the
nation that went the extra mile to
bring peace among warring nations. We
should be known as the nation that
made both land and sea safe for all.
In particular, I believe that we
should seize every opportunity to engage in multilateral efforts to preserve
world peace. We should redouble our
support for the United Nations, and not
diminish it as some propose. We should
not lose sight of the UNs solid record
of brokering peaceactions that have
consistently served U.S. interests and
spared us the costly alternatives that
might have otherwise resulted.
In education, I want us to be known
as the nation that continually expanded educational opportunitiesthat
brought every child into the educational mainstream, and that brought
the dream of a college education within the reach of every student who has
the drive, talent, and desire. We should
always remember that public support
for education is the best possible investment we can make in our Nations

S12422

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE

future. It should be accorded the highest priority.


In the arts and humanities, I want us
to be known for our contributions, and
for the encouragement we give to
young and old alike to pursue their
God-given talents. I want us to be recognized as a nation that opened the
arts to everyone, and brought the humanities into every home. And here
too, I believe government has a proper
role in strengthening and preserving
our national cultural heritage.
Pursuing these objectives is not an
endeavor that ends with the retirement
of one person. It is a lifetime pursuit of
a nation, and not an individual. It is always a work of art in progress, and always one subject to temporary lapses
and setbacks. My hope, however, is
that it is our ongoing mission to become, like Athens, a nation that is
known for its civility and its civilization.

IN HONOR OF ALPHA DELTA


KAPPA
Mr. PELL. Mr. President. This
month we celebrate the fine work of
Alpha Delta Kappa Sorority. I would
like to ask may colleagues to join me
in paying tribute to this outstanding
international organization of women
educators.
Founded in 1947, Alpha Delta Kappa
today has nearly 60,000 members in
2,000 chapters located in towns and
cities in every State and around the
world in Australia, Canada, Jamaica,
Mexico, and Puerto Rico. I am proud to
say that we have eight strong chapters
in Rhode Island. All the sorority members have been selected to join the honorary society by peers who have recognized their contributions in establishing high teaching standards and in promoting excellence and dedication. As a
champion of teachers throughout my
life, I am delighted to see these essential women receive the praise they deserve.
Let no one think that the Alpha
Delta Kappa members rest on their laurels. They make a major contribution
to the lives of others through the sponsorship of educational scholarships and
altruistic projects. In the past 2 years
alone, members have given at the
grassroots level over $3.9 million in
monetary gifts, over $1.1 million in
scholarships, and have provided over
1.3 million hours of volunteer service. I
am particularly pleased that seven
young women from foreign countries
are each awarded $10,000 scholarships
to study for 1 year in colleges and universities throughout the United States.
Through is altruistic projects, members of Alpha Delta Kappa have contributed nearly $1 million to St. Jude
Childrens Research Hospital, and,
since 1991, $100,000 to the Pediatric
AIDS Foundation. This is a remarkable
contribution.
In 1997, Alpha Delta Kappa will celebrate its golden anniversary. This,
however, is the month we take time to

pay tribute to the outstanding contributions of its many members to the


betterment of education in our Nation
and other parts of the world. Congratulations.
IMPORTANT WORK ON BEHALF OF
WORKING
PEOPLE
DONE
BY
LABOR COMMITTEE DURING MY
TENURE
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, upon joining the U.S. Senate in January 1961, I
became a member of the Senate Labor
and Public Welfare Committeenow
called the Labor and Human Resources
Committee.
From the beginning of my careerlong tenure on the committee until
today, I have had the distinct honor of
serving with and learning from some
giants of the Senate and have had the
pleasure of working on many important pieces of legislation.
When I first joined the committee on
January 1961which, according to the
Official Congressional Directory for
the 87th Congress, met on the second
and forth Thursdays of each month
membership of the committee included
Ralph Yarborough of Texas, the great
Jennings Randolph of West Virginia,
Barry Goldwater, Everett Dirksen and
my old, dear friend Jacob Javits. The
following year, John Tower joined the
committee.
In 1963, our current ranking member
TED KENNEDY first came to the committee. Few can question the wonderful work Senator KENNEDY has done for
America from his post on the committee.
In the years following, many outstanding members of this body joined
the committee and shared their skills
and insights with us. Along with those
I have already referred to, I have had
the pleasure of working with many
whose names are well known to this
day: Robert F. Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Tom Eagleton, Alan Cranston,
Richard Schweicker, my partner for
many years on Education matters Robert Stafford, ORRIN HATCH, Howard
Metzenbaum, STROM THURMOND and
our current Chair, the most gracious
NANCY KASSEBAUM. I do not believe our
committee has ever been led by a more
evenhanded Chair.
I think it is a tribute to the committee and the importance of its jurisdiction that some of the greatest Senators
of our time decided to sit on the committee.
During my tenure on the Labor Committee, the committee has worked on
many important issues in the areas of
health, education, and labor including
many directly affecting the working
men and women of this country.
A brief review of the achievements of
the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee shows that during
the past 36 years, we have worked to
create and improve laws of great import to the working people of this Nation.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 established broad minimum

October 21, 1996

standards for the conditions under


which American workers work.
The Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972 gave the Equal Employment
and Opportunity Commission much
needed teeth to curb workplace discrimination.
In 1974, unemployment compensation
was extended to 12 million previously
uncovered Americans.
After five years of committee hearings and study, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA]
was enacted that guaranteed that pension plan participants would receive
their promised benefits even if the pension fund was terminated.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibited workplace discrimination for workers between 40 and
67 years of age.
When I joined the committee in 1961,
the Federal minimum wage was $1.
That minimum was increased over the
years and thanks to the efforts of
many on this committee, minimum
wage workers in the United States will
be receiving a much needed raise to
$5.15 over the next 2 years.
Many job retraining programs have
been established to help workers who
have lost their jobs through no fault of
their own. During the 104th Congress,
the committee spent a great deal of
time trying to unify the Federal programs into one single program better
suited for the demands of todays workplace. Unfortunately, those efforts
ended in failure.
In 1988, legislation passed by this
committee to require advance notification to workers of plant closings and
large scale layoffs became law.
In 1986, certain protections of the
Fair Labor Standards Act were extended to disabled individuals.
The above is but a thumbnail outline
of the important work in the area of
labor and employment done by the
Labor Committee during the past 36
years. I am pleased to have been involved in such important work with a
fine group of colleaguesboth wellknown and unsung.

CODETERMINATION
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for many
years, I have been interested in the efforts of many countries in Europe to
involve their workers in all levels of
company decisionmaking. Employees
serve on the board of directors which
addresses long-term management of
the company, the Supervisory or Administrative Board that deals with the
daily operations of the company, and
Works Councils which are localized
with many councils existing within the
same plant. This practice is often referred to as codetermination.
While European-style codetermination would not be a perfect fit here in
the United States, the concept of worker involvement remains valid. After
years of bitter, and even violent interaction and with the ever increasing demands of a high-tech workplace in a

You might also like