{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12420", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "SOME PARTING THOUGHTS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12420", "S12422", "[{\"name\": \"Claiborne Pell\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "142 Cong. Rec. S12420", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12420-S12422]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n                         SOME PARTING THOUGHTS\n\n Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as I approach the end of my sixth\nterm in the Senate, I look back at the 36 years with wonder and awe at\nwhat we have passed through, but with some concern for the future of\nour institutions in the century ahead.\n  My concern is rooted in apprehension that human nature may not be\nkeeping pace with the means now at our disposal to influence opinion\nand effect change.\n  A long range, telescopic view of our place in history puts this\nconcern in perspective, particularly as we approach the end of the\nsecond millennium. The thousand years that began with a tradition of\nchivalry in dank Medieval castles, ends with a distinctly unchivalrous,\nalbeit more comfortable, world community tied together by the instant\nmiracle of electronic communication and jet flight, but overshadowed by\nthe still lingering threat of mass destruction.\n  Considering these extremes, I am led to reflect that the rules of\nhuman behavior in the conduct of public affairs have not developed as\nrapidly as the provisions for human comfort, or the means of\ncommunication--or indeed, of mass destruction.\n  Sometimes, it almost seems, to paraphrase a common humorous\nexpression, as though we should ``stop the world'' and let the human\nspirit catch up with technological progress. So now I ask myself what\nguidance can we give to those who follow that would help them, short of\nstopping the world, to reconcile the realities of the day with the\nrealm of the spirit?\n  When I came to the Senate in 1961, it was, in retrospect, a time of\nalmost unlimited possibilities. Most of us were imbued with a rather\nexuberant mind-set conditioned by recent events. We had lived through\nthe economic crises of the 1930's and we had survived the cataclysm of\nWorld War II, and in both cases it had been the dominant role of a\nstrong central government which had saved the day. So it was not\nsurprising that we brought with us a great sense of confidence in the\nrole of government.\n  We extended that faith in progressive government into many other\nareas, and I believe we did many good things in its name in the years\nthat followed. I am very proud of the fact that I was able to play a\nmodest part in these endeavors, particularly in the field of education.\n  But hovering over us for the three decades that followed was the\nnumbing specter of the cold war that tested our endurance and our\nnerve. It was in the peripheral engagements of the cold war, first\nKorea and then, most conclusively, in Vietnam, that the basic tenets of\nour commitment were put to the test. And in the latter event, they were\nfound wanting in the minds and hearts of many of us.\n  In retrospect, it may well have been the widespread disillusionment\nwith foreign policy in the Vietnam era which sowed the seeds of a\nbroader cynicism which seems to be abroad in the land today. And with\nit came an end to that sense of unlimited possibilities that many of us\nbrought to public life.\n  Many other factors have contributed to that current of cynicism, but\nprimary among them, in my view, is the impact of the electronic media,\nparticularly in its treatment of politics and public affairs. At its\nworst, it glorifies sensationalism, thrives on superficiality and\nraises false expectations, often by holding people in public life\naccountable to standards which are frequently unrealistic or simply not\nrelevant.\n  Unfortunately, the rise of the electronic media has coincided with\nthe coming of age of a new generation of Americans which is both\nblessed and challenged by the absence of the unifying force of a clear\nnational adversary.\n  I am reminded, in this connection, of Shakespeare's reference to\n``the cankers of a calm world and a long peace,'' referring to the age\nof Henry IV, when a temporary absence of conflict had an adverse effect\non the quality of recruits pressed into military service. In our time,\nthe sudden ending of the cold war removed what had been a unifying\nnational threat, leaving in its wake a vacuum of purpose which I fear\nhas been filled in part by the cankers of the electronic media.\n  The result has been a climate which exploits the natural\nconfrontational atmosphere of the democratic process by accentuating\nextremes without elaborating on the less exciting details. It is a\nclimate which encourages pandering to the lowest levels of public and\nprivate greed, a prime example of which is the almost universal\ndefamation of the taxing power which makes it virtually impossible to\nconduct a rational public debate over revenue policy.\n  The times call for a renewed sense of moral responsibility in public\nservice, and for service performed with courage of conviction. To be\nsure, this is not a new idea. One of my favorite political quotations\nin this regard is an excerpt from a speech by Edmund Burke to the\nElectors of Bristol in 1774:\n\n       Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but\n     his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he\n     sacrifices it to your opinion.\n\n  It must be noted that Mr. Burke was thrown out of office not long\nafter making this speech, demonstrating a courage of conviction on his\npart and on the part of the electors as well. But he stands as a model,\nnonetheless, of the sort of selfless dedication to principle which must\nbe brought to bear in the current climate.\n  Beyond individual virtue, I believe we must strive in a corporate\nsense for a qualitative change in public dialog. If I could have one\nwish for the future of our country in the new millennium, it would be\nthat we not abandon the traditional norms of behavior that are the\nunderpinning of our democratic system.\n  Comity and civility, transcending differences of party and ideology,\nhave always been crucial elements in making Government an effective and\nconstructive instrument of public will. But in times such as these,\nwhen there is fundamental disagreement about the role of Government, it\nis all the more essential that we preserve the spirit of civil\ndiscourse.\n  It has been distressing of late to hear the complaints of those who\nwould abandon public service because they find the atmosphere mean\nspirited. They seem to suggest that the basic rules of civilized\nbehavior have been stifled.\n  They make a good point, although I hasten to say that this was not a\nconsideration in my own decision to retire at the end of my present\nterm. After more than 35 years, I have some to expect a certain amount\nof rancor in the legislative process. But I certainly agree that it\nseems to have gotten out of bounds.\n  I say this with all respect for my colleagues in the Senate. They are\nwonderfully talented men and women, dedicated to serving their\nconstituents and to improving the quality of our national life. I do\nnot expect to have the good fortune again to work with such a fine,\nwell-motivated and able group. But even this exceptional group\nsometimes yields to the virus of discontent which has infected the body\npolitic.\n  In 1995, before retiring from the Senate to become president of the\nUniversity of Oklahoma, my good friend David Boren sent a letter to his\ncolleagues lamenting the fact that ``we have become so partisan and so\npersonal in our attacks upon each other that we can no longer\neffectively work together in the natural interest.'' It was a\nthoughtful warning that has meaning far beyond the U.S. Senate and\napplies to our whole national political dialog.\n  The fact is that the democratic process depends on respectful\ndisagreement. As soon as we confuse civil debate with reckless\ndisparagement, we have crippled the process. A breakdown of civility\nreinforces extremism and\n\n[[Page S12421]]\n\ndiscourages the hard process of negotiating across party lines to reach\na broad-based consensus.\n  The Founding Fathers who prescribed the ground rules for debate in\nCongress certainly had all these considerations in mind. We address\neach other in the third person with what seems like elaborate courtesy.\nThe purpose, of course, is to remind us constantly that whatever the\ndepth of our disagreements, we are all common instruments of the\ndemocratic process.\n  Some of that spirit, I believe, needs to be infused into the\ncontinuing national debate that takes place outside the Halls of\nCongress. It should be absorbed by our political parties and it should\nbe respected by the media, particularly in this era of electronic\ninformation. The democratic process is not well served by spin doctors\nand sound bites.\n  Nor is it well served by blustering assertions of no compromise, such\nas those we heard in the wake of the 1994 congressional elections.\nDavid Boren had the temerity--and wisdom--to suggest that instead of\nholding weekly meetings to plot how to outsmart each other, the party\ncaucuses in the Senate should hold two meetings a month to explore\nbipartisan solutions on pending issues. Again, it's another good idea\nwhich could apply to the national dialog.\n  I would only add my own prescription for comity, which can be\nsummarized in three simple rules:\n  First, never respond to an adversary in ad hominem terms. In my six\ncampaigns for the Senate, I have never resorted to negative\nadvertising. The electorate seems to have liked that approach, since\nthey have given me an average margin of victory of 64 percent.\n  Second, always let the other fellow have your way. I have always\nfound that winning an ally is far more important than getting exclusive\ncredit. In politics, the best way to convince someone is to lead him or\nher to discover what you already know.\n  Third, sometimes, half a loaf can feed an army. The democratic\nprocess is meant to be slow and deliberate, and change is hard to\nachieve. Very often, achievement of half of an objective is just as\nsignificant as achievement of 100 percent. And it may make it easier to\nachieve the rest later.\n  In Government, as in all endeavors, it is the end result that\ncounts--whether that result is half a loaf or more. Hopefully, an\nincrease in comity and civility, together with renewed emphasis on\nmoral responsibility, will result in a qualitative improvement in end\nresults.\n\n  In that regard, I have been guided throughout my Senate career by a\nsimple motto and statement of purpose. It is a mantra of just seven\nwords:\n\n              translate ideas into action and help people\n\n  There have been some days, to be sure, when neither of these\nobjectives has been achieved, but week after week and year after year,\nI have found those words to be useful guideposts for a legislative\ncareer. They help one sort the wheat from the chaff.\n  And they also are a constant reminder that our role is to produce\nresults in the form of sound legislation, and not engage in endless and\nrepetitive debate that leads nowhere. This is an especially hard\nprescription for the U.S. Senate, comprised as it is of 100 coequal\nMembers, each representing a sovereign State. Everyone has a right to\nspeak at length.\n  But there are some limits. And a principal one is the Senate's rule\nthat debate can be curtailed by invoking cloture, if three-fifths of\nthe Members, or 60 Senators, vote to do so. It has been my general\npolicy to vote for cloture, regardless of party or issue, except when\nthere were very compelling circumstances to the contrary. Over my\nSenate career I have cost more than 350 votes for cloture, which may be\nsomething of a record.\n  It should be noted that circumstances have changed greatly since the\nSenate imposed the cloture rule back in 1917. In those days, there were\ngenuine filibusters with marathon speeches that often kept the Senate\nin continuous session for days, including all night sessions with cots\nset up in the lobbies. Nowadays, such displays of endurance virtually\nnever occur, but at the very threat of extended debate, the 60-vote\nrequirement is invoked to see if the minority has enough votes to\nprevail against it--and if they do, the pending bill is often pulled\ndown and set aside.\n  The 60-vote margin, which originally was set even higher at two-\nthirds of those present, was designed to protect the minority's right\nto make itself heard, while still providing a vehicle for curbing\ndebate. Only a super majority can impose limits. But as time and\npractice have evolved, the other side of the coin has revealed itself--\nnamely that a willful minority of 40 or more Senators can use the\ncloture rule to block legislative progress. Recent majority leaders of\nboth parties have expressed frustration with the deadlocks that can\nresult.\n  The ultimate solution, of course, might be to outlaw all super\nmajorities, except for those specifically allowed by the Constitution--\nsuch as veto overrides, treaty approvals and impeachment verdicts.\nSince the Constitution carefully provides for these specific\nexceptions, it might be assumed that the Framers intended that all\nother business should be transacted by a simple majority.\n  I must hasten to say that while I find the logic of such an ultimate\nsolution to be intriguing, I do not subscribe to it. As a Senator from\nthe smallest State, I have always been sensitive to the fact that\ncircumstances could arise in which I would need the special protection\nof minority rights which is accorded by the cloture rule.\n  One possible solution which certainly bears future consideration is a\ncompromise recently proposed by Senator Tom Harkin. Under his plan, the\nexisting cloture rule would be modified by providing that if the three-\nfifth is not obtained on the first try, the margin be reduced\nprogressively on subsequent cloture votes on the same bill over a\nperiod of time until only a simple majority would be required to shut\noff debate. Such a plan would protect the minority but would do so\nwithin reasonable limits of time, after which the majority could\nconduct the business of the Senate.\n  With reasonable reforms in the cloture rule, and with a new spirit of\ncomity and civility along with a renewed sense of responsible public\nservice, I do believe the Senate, and our institutions of government in\ngeneral, can rise to the challenges of the new century. And in doing\nso, they hopefully will address more satisfactorily than we have done\nso far some of the truly compelling issues of our times--such as\neconomic disparity and racial and social inequality.\n\n  Over the years, I have thought time and again of the historical\ncomparison between Sparta and Athens. Sparta is known historically for\nits ability to wage war, and little more. Athens, however, is known for\nits immense contributions to culture and civilization.\n  In all that I have done over the past 36 years in the U.S. Senate, I\nhave had that comparison uppermost in mind. I believe deeply that when\nthe full history of our Nation is recorded, it is critical that we be\nknown as an Athens, and not a Sparta.\n  My efforts in foreign relations have been guided accordingly. I\nbelieve that instead of our ability to wage war, we should be known for\nour ability to bring peace. Having been the first and only nation to\nuse a nuclear weapon, we should be known as the nation that brought an\nend to the spread of nuclear weapons. We should be known as the nation\nthat went the extra mile to bring peace among warring nations. We\nshould be known as the nation that made both land and sea safe for all.\n  In particular, I believe that we should seize every opportunity to\nengage in multilateral efforts to preserve world peace. We should\nredouble our support for the United Nations, and not diminish it as\nsome propose. We should not lose sight of the UN's solid record of\nbrokering peace--actions that have consistently served U.S. interests\nand spared us the costly alternatives that might have otherwise\nresulted.\n  In education, I want us to be known as the nation that continually\nexpanded educational opportunities--that brought every child into the\neducational mainstream, and that brought the dream of a college\neducation within the reach of every student who has the drive, talent,\nand desire. We should always remember that public support for education\nis the best possible investment we can make in our Nation's\n\n[[Page S12422]]\n\nfuture. It should be accorded the highest priority.\n  In the arts and humanities, I want us to be known for our\ncontributions, and for the encouragement we give to young and old alike\nto pursue their God-given talents. I want us to be recognized as a\nnation that opened the arts to everyone, and brought the humanities\ninto every home. And here too, I believe government has a proper role\nin strengthening and preserving our national cultural heritage.\n  Pursuing these objectives is not an endeavor that ends with the\nretirement of one person. It is a lifetime pursuit of a nation, and not\nan individual. It is always a work of art in progress, and always one\nsubject to temporary lapses and setbacks. My hope, however, is that it\nis our ongoing mission to become, like Athens, a nation that is known\nfor its civility and its civilization.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12420"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 26.098144939169288, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}