Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, As my colleagues have heard me say many times before, The United States is the only industrialized country in the world that has not converted to the metric system of measurement. I ask my colleagues to imagine what we are missing by being so out of step with the rest of the world. The answer is basic: The United States stands to gain untold millions--possibly billions--in export trade we are currently losing because our non-metric products literally do not fit into international markets. The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that U.S. exports could be increased by up to 20 percent by offering metric-sized goods to international markets. In a booklet published by the Small Business Administration [SBA] for small businesses considering converting to the metric system, the SBA cites three examples of the trade problems caused by the production of nonmetric goods. Saudi Arabia rejected a shipment of American-made appliances because the power cords were 6 feet long rather than the 2 meter length required by Saudi law. A Middle Eastern company was forced to rewire all electronic equipment imported from the United States because standard American wire sizes are different from international standards. Countries around the world have great difficulty finding American lumber companies that will produce lumber in metric lengths for use in the construction. In that regard, I strongly believe that the Federal Government should lead by example and conduct its business, including all procurement, in the metric system. By doing business and thereby promoting the metric system, our Government would send a very important and badly needed signal to American businesses and our trade partners around the world that as a nation we are back on track with the conversion process that has already taken place in the rest of the modern world. During the closing weeks of this Congress, I had the pleasure of working with Senator Glenn and Senator Hollings in an effort to moderate antimetric legislation that came before the Senate. Senator Hollings and I have worked together on this issue for some time-- particularly in the all important area of trade. I am confident he will continue this fight in the years to come. Senator John Glenn--a pioneer in space exploration--is a man of science, a man of the future. During floor debate on unfunded mandates legislation a the beginning of the 104th Congress he gave a most eloquent defense of the metric system. The metric system is an integral part of both science and our future. I hope Senator Glenn will take my place and bring his knowledge and experience to the fight.

Mr. PELL

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 Children's 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.

Mr. PELL

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 global economy, a more collaborative process has developed that brings workers and employers together on an ongoing basis. Companies ranging from Texas Instruments and IBM to Harley-Davidson motorcycles have instituted ongoing employer-employee work councils in which employees and employers cooperatively determine the direction of their company. There is, I believe, little disagreement about the value of these councils. There is, however, considerable debate about the legality of these groups. We are told by some that this disagreement produces a chilling effect that hinders the continued and future development of employer-employee work councils. I have worked for some time to find a balance. During the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation, S. 2499, which, among other features, established a formal election process for employee representatives to labor-management groups. During the 104th Congress, improved labor-management relations were highjacked by partisan politics and corporate greed in the form the TEAM Act which attempted to rewrite Federal labor law to give employers control of labor-management teams. I did not reintroduce that legislation but continued to explore other ways to accomplish change. I seriously considered offering an amendment to the TEAM Act to give employees the right to select their own council representatives; ensure that council agendas were open to both employees and employers and finally, prohibit the unilateral cancellation of a council. The TEAM Act, and similar ideas are certainly not the answer. I am concerned, however, that past labor-management relations will not continue to serve us well either. As a nation, we now find ourselves involved in a global economy competing with other countries, not other companies. In addition, more and more of our trade is high technology. The era of workers spending all day inserting tab A into slot B is coming to an end. Workers must be better educated and well trained in high technology. With that education, high-tech training and on the job experience, today's workers have valuable insights and ideas that should be welcomed by their employers. It should be our job to allow the exchange of thoughts and ideas to take place but without employees endangering their employment in the process. I sincerely hope that in the future, Congress will, without partisan and special interest bias, work to make it easier for employees and their employers to cooperatively determine the future of their company.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, upon joining the U.S. Senate in January 1961, I became a member of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee--now called the Labor and Human Resources Committee. From the beginning of my career-long 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 1961--which, 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 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 today's 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 colleagues--both well-known and unsung.

Mr. PELL

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 communication--or 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 mind-set conditioned by recent events. We had lived through the economic crises of the 1930's 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 Shakespeare's 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: 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 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 temerity--and wisdom--to 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, it's 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 counts--whether 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 Senate's 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 it--and 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 minority's 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 itself-- namely 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 Constitution-- such 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. 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 times--such 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 UN's solid record of brokering peace--actions 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 opportunities--that 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 Nation's 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.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I salute my old friend and colleague the senior Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] as he reaches the end of his distinguished Senate career. It has been my special good fortune to know Bennett Johnston as a friend, quite apart from our collegial work here in the Senate. I have enjoyed his hospitality on many occasions and have appreciated his good sportsmanship on the tennis court. As I said when he announced his intention to retire last year, he can always be called a straight shooter, in the best sense of the word. He will, of course, best be remembered for his landmark work as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, particularly as that committee grappled with the new challenges posed by nuclear energy. I salute him for that, and I know that he has charted new ground where others will surely follow. One of the most difficult aspects of leaving this body is the loss of daily contact with colleagues whose friendship has enriched the experience of Senate service. Bennett Johnston has truly been one such colleague, and I wish all the best for him and his lovely wife, Mary, in all that lies ahead.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I salute the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] on the occasion of his retirement from the Senate. During this term here he has contributed a great deal, especially in his work on the Committee on Foreign Relations. During the first years of his term, he served as the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on International Relations, where I especially appreciated his bipartisan support in helping to forge the State Department authorization bill. 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.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Senator William Cohen who is returning to his homestate of Maine after serving with distinction in the Senate for 18 years. I'm glad to have the opportunity to honor my friend who has made such an outstanding contribution to our region and the country I have often lamented the rise in partisanship that has permeated this Chamber over the past several years. I continue to believe that our Nation is best served by leaders who have respect for different views and the ability to compromise and negotiate meaningful policy. Senator Cohen is not only a man who I believe shares this view, but has practiced it and made bipartisan consensus his trademark. Senator Cohen has been a leader in foregoing bipartisan solutions to some of our Nation's most vexing problems. To ensure the public's trust in Congress, Senator Cohen worked tirelessly with Senator Levin to help enact a lobby disclosure and gift ban. When America was embroiled in the Iran-Contra affair, Senator Cohen joined Senator Mitchell in examining and investigating allegations of misconduct by the executive branch. Senator Cohen has always sought a dialog to consider as many views as possible and supported legislation that holds all Senators to the highest standard. My colleague from New England, the senior Senator from Maine, is also the author of eight books. Senator Cohen is still a young man and while he will be greatly missed in the Senate, I wish him well in what I am sure will be a bright future.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my best wishes to Senator James Exon, who is retiring from the Senate after 18 years of dedicated service to his constituents in Nebraska. He is a true friend and a respected and trusted colleague. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Exon has provided invaluable leadership in ensuring the integrity of our national defense. I have had the honor of working with him on the problem of U.S. nuclear weapons testing. At the end of the cold war, Senator Exon utilized his common sense and Midwestern values to grapple with the difficult task of defense downsizing. Senator Exon was not afraid to take on this, and other, difficult issues--deficit reduction and restricting foreign takeovers of businesses that are vital to our national security. Jim Exon has earned the respect and gratitude of his colleagues, constituents, and citizens of our Nation. I know that I shall miss my colleague from Nebraska and I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, sometimes there are those among us whose Senatorial persona overshadows the full measure of past achievement. Such a man is the retiring senior Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin]. Those who witness his wisdom and dignity of bearing on the floor of the Senate have no difficulty in envisioning him as the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. But they may not perceive the U.S. Marine of World War II who was wounded twice in combat and awarded the Silver Star. My own special insight into the exceptional character of Judge Heflin came when we shared the discomfort of a field trip into the Brazilian rain forest. As always his qualities of wit and wisdom shown through. Here in the Senate, his unshakable demeanor and integrity have endeared him to all and served as a model for the sort of decorum and comity which should pervade our proceedings. It was inevitable that we should award him with the thankless task of chairing the Select Committee on Ethics. I thank Judge Heflin for all he has done to enrich the life of the Senate, and I wish him well as he returns to Alabama.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the 104th Congress certainly ended far better than it began. A year ago, I truly feared that the major accomplishments of my 36 years in the Senate were about to be jettisoned by the extreme agenda of the new majority. Now, as the Congress draws to a close, the outlook is considerably brighter, thanks in great measure to President Clinton's determined resistance to an unreasonable dismantlement of progressive government. I am immensely pleased, in particular, that the tide was turned on education and that we actually wound up with a 12 percent increase in Federal funding. To be sure, there have been some disappointments, notable among them the failure to ratify the Chemical Weapons and Law of the Sea Treaties. And we should not lose sight of the fact that there is still momentum toward curtailment of many programs of great merit. I fervently hope that the coming election will produce a Congress that will be more moderate in outlook and further redress the balance toward progressive government.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the ties that bind us together here often transcend party identity and the affairs of the day, and they frequently span expanses of time and space. Such are the ties on which my friendship with the senior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] has been based. The initial tie was through his father, our former colleague, Milward L. Simpson, who in his early years--probably while he was a student at Harvard Law School in the 1920's--earned high repute as a tutor. And among the students he tutored with great effectiveness, were the children of my uncle, Clarence Pell. So I feel that my friendship with Senator Alan Simpson began long ago with this family association. Alan Simpson brought to his work here in the Senate rare attributes of grace and good humor--qualities which help immeasurably in facilitating the often contentious and trying process of political accommodation. To my mind, these qualities of mind and spirit, which do so much to promote comity and civility, are almost as important as the substance of the great good work that Alan Simpson has done in the fields of immigration reform, veterans affairs, and entitlement reform. Indeed, his success as a legislator is attributable in no small measure to the refreshing traits of character which he brought to the effort. Most important of all is his wonderful sense of humor--a quality often lacking in this body. I value my association with Alan and Ann Simpson over the years and wish them well in all that lies ahead.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to the senior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], who announced last year that he would not seek reelection but that he would remain active in public life. Blessed with both great academic and athletic gifts, Bill Bradley graduated from my alma mater, Princeton University, with honors in American history. He won a rhodes scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned his graduate degree after studying politics, philosophy, and economics. He was best known to many, before he came to the Senate, as a basketball player of tremendous skill and talent. During his career in the Senate, four principles have guided Bill Bradley. He has sought to restore economic and personal security for American families, strengthen our civil society, protect our natural heritage and rethink America's role in the world. He has worked toward these goals on the Senate Finance Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Special Committee on Aging. Others may focus on his contributions in the fields of economics and taxes, but I believe he Bill Bradley has been particularly effective in building bridges between peoples and spreading the values of democracy--methods which I also consider the best ways of building lasting security and peace. Bill Bradley wrote the 1992 Freedom Exchange Act, the largest U.S. educational exchange initiative in history. I understand that more than 10,000 ``Bradley kids'' have come here from the former Soviet Union to study and absorb our culture and the lessons for freedom, democracy and a market economy. The Senate will miss him and his spirit of independence. I am confident that, although he is retiring, he will not be out of public life. Whatever he and his family do, I trust that it will be as exciting and rewarding. The Senate, however, will truly miss him.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on the cloture vote, which was one of the last votes--if not the last--I cast in this body, I departed from my customary practice of supporting cloture. I have cast some 350 votes for cloture during my 36 years in the Senate, often at variance with my own party and usually irrespective of the issues, except in extraordinary circumstances. The vote today was one of those extraordinary cases. At issue was a provision that would grant an exclusive benefit to the management of one corporate entity, at the expense of long established principles of fair labor relations. Moreover, the provision was added in circumstances that were at variance with customary legislative practice and rules. So, in my view, the only proper course was to oppose the cloture motion in order to allow for consideration of alternative action. As I leave the Senate, I continue to believe that cloture is a valuable tool to prevent legislative deadlock. I recognize that in its more recent usage, it has become simply a test of supermajority strength on the one hand, and on the other, a defensive weapon for a minority. But in overall terms, the Senate does need a mechanism that will assure reasonable continuity of action and I am proud of my record of cloture votes in that regard.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the departure of our dear friend the junior senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] from the Senate will leave a void that will be hard to fill. His special qualities of modesty and quiet accomplishment are all too rare. I have always greatly appreciated his decency and courtesy and his true sense of compassion. He epitomizes the sense of comity and civility which to my mind should pervade the body politic. I wish for the sake of the Senate and the Nation that Senator Pryor could stay longer. But he leaves now with the fullest possible measure of respect and affection of his colleagues. I wish all the best for David and Barbara Pryor in the years ahead, and want them to know that they will always have my warmest friendship and admiration.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, we who have the privilege of serving in this body soon find that we may not always be in agreement with friends and colleagues for whom we have high regard. The senior Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nunn) is such a colleague. I have always found him to be a man of singular ability, rectitude and decency. He came here as a youthful successor to a legendary predecessor, Senator Richard B. Russell, and quickly established himself as a serious and studious Member who could and did thoroughly master the intricacies of national defense policy. Senator Nunn's term of service coincided with the last two decades of the cold war, and he leaves his mark as one of the architects of U.S. defense policy during that trying epoch. I sometimes found myself in disagreement with his emphasis on large defense budgets, since I was primarily committed to the cause of arms control and restraint in the nuclear arms race. History seems to have demonstrated that it took a balance of the two views we represented to assure our national survival. Senator Nunn and I not only shared a common preoccupation with the major international issues of the time, but we brought to the task one very basic common thread of experience which may have colored our responses, and that was the fact that we were among the few members of the Senate who had served in the U.S. Coast Guard. I served as an enlisted man on convoy duty in the North Atlantic in World War II and Sam Nunn enlisted as a seaman some 20 years later when the world faced other stresses. Sam Nunn leaves the Senate at a relatively early age with a solid record of accomplishment. I wish him well in the years ahead.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have had the honor and privilege of serving with Senator Kassebaum on both the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources and, I must say, that service together has always been, for me, a pleasure. Senator Kassebaum has served on the Labor Committee from the 101st through the 104th Congress. In the 101st and the 102d she served as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities. During that period, we worked most closely and successfully together on matters such as the reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act in 1990, Library Services and Construction in 1990, and the Higher Education Act in 1992. We worked in the strong bipartisan fashion that has traditionally been the hallmark of the subcommittee. In the 103d Congress Senator Kassebaum became the ranking member of the full Labor Committee, and we continued to work closely together on such important matters as Goals 2000 and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994. Most recently, I have been proud to work with her in her present capacity as chairman of the Labor Committee in this, the 104th Congress. Her Workforce Development Act provided a much-needed overhaul and consolidation of our job training programs, and it also contained a series of very strong and positive vocational and adult education provisions. I supported the legislation both in committee and on the Senate floor, and regret very much that the Senate bill did not prevail. Similarly, Mr. President, we served together since the 97th Congress on the Committee on Foreign Relations. There, to my enormous regret, the tradition of bipartisanship is not quite as well entrenched, but partisan conflicts were never caused by Senator Kassebaum. She always conducted herself in the most rational, informed and moderate fashion. I would add that, in her years on the committee, she developed a remarkable expertise regarding the continent and the countries of Africa and an accompanying--and admirable--dedication to the often neglected peoples of that continent. During those years she traveled often to Africa, came to know its geography, and developed relationships with its political and business leaders. I think it is fair to say that she was unrivaled as the Senate's expert on Africa and African issues. In the years we have worked together on both committees, I can say without question that Nancy Kassebaum has always been thoughtful, considerate, and gracious. I can also say that she is tenacious and determined. But most of all, she brings all of those traits together in the most marvelous way. I know that I am not alone in this assessment. Everyone in this Chamber knows that is the way it is with this gentlewoman from Kansas. While I also will not be here next year, I know for sure that this body will not be the same without her principled and sensible approach to public policy. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I first met the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] some 40 years ago in Moscow when we found ourselves sitting next to each other at the Bolshoi Ballet. Little did we ever think that our paths would intertwine so closely in the years that were to follow. After Paul came to the House of Representatives in 1974, we found ourselves in close collaboration in advancing the cause of education. We worked together on a myriad of education issues when he was chairman of the House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education. When he came to the Senate more than a decade ago, he joined me on the Education Subcommittee and we have worked even more closely together on education issues since. There is no Member of either House whose opinion on education issues I respect more. Paul Simon is the person we turn to for guidance on the subjects of literacy and adult education. His is the counsel I have valued most in higher education, on issues such as TRIO, institutional aid, international education, graduate education, foreign language instruction, and student aid. Even when we disagreed, as we did on direct loans, I listened to what Paul Simon said, and I have had a deep and abiding respect for his advocacy of that cause. While I have normally deferred to Paul on library issues, I must candidly admit that the opinion of Jean, Paul's wonderfully talented wife, carried equal weight on those matters. During Paul's first term in the Senate, our paths were to become further intertwined when he became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. During his 8 years as a member of the committee he brought to its work the energy, creativity, and intellectual capacity which are his hallmarks. Much of that time he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and he was tireless and eloquent in urging the committee's attention to the plight of that often neglected continent. Paul Simon is very much an internationalist and he made important contributions in such areas as human rights, arms control, and foreign assistance. I deeply appreciate having him as an ally in the efforts to reinvigorate the Arms Control and Disarmament Administration and to restrain the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He was a true stalwart. Finally, Mr. President, he brought his passion for the teaching of foreign languages to the field of foreign policy. He consistently pressed the State Department to broaden its foreign language capabilities and every State Department nominee knew that, during a nomination hearing, Senator Simon was likely to grill him or her on how fluent they were in the language of the country to which they had been assigned. Alas, too often Senator Simon learned that the fluency was minimal, but he never ceased to press the Department to improve. Throughout the period we have worked together, I have never failed to be impressed by the depth of Paul's knowledge, the quiet deliberation with which he pursued his goals, the strength of his convictions, and perhaps most important, the wisdom of his counsel. I can think of no more decent and dedicated public servant.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as my own time in the Senate draws to a close, I find myself reflecting on those people and events that I will remember always. A man who holds a unique place in my regard and that of many others in the Senate is the senior Senator from Oregon (Mr. Hatfield). He came to the Senate in 1967, 6 years after I did, and he has become a Senator known for his intelligence, acuity, grace, and for love of his State and country. The State of Oregon has a fine heritage. Mr. Hatfield has a number of distinguished predecessors. A fellow Oregonian, Senator Wayne Morse, voted in 1964 against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that provided the congressional blessing for what later became the Vietnam War. Mark Hatfield was not in the Senate at that time. He was then Governor of Oregon. But in 1965 Mark Hatfield cast the only vote at the National Governor's Conference in opposition to a resolution supporting President Johnson's Vietnam war policy. He has taken other principled and unpopular positions over time. In 1981 he joined with my friend, the senior senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) in spearheading the Senate campaign for a nuclear freeze. He has been a constant advocate of restraint in the nuclear arms race, limits on defense spending, an end to nuclear testing and a code of conduct in international arms transfers. Some of Senator Hatfield's efforts such as the Nuclear Freeze in the 1980's or the effort in the last several years to enact the code of conduct on arms transfers have not come to fruition. Other endeavors, such as his effort to bring about a comprehensive test ban have been smashing successes. It was Senator Hatfield's own initiative in 1992 as ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations that led to the U.S. moratorium on nuclear testing and led to the eventual ending of testing by all the nuclear powers and the completion this summer of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Like John the Baptist, Mark Hatfield has often been a voice crying in the wilderness. It is not however a role in life he has regretted. He has felt obligated to speak his convictions and to let his judgments be known throughout his Senate career. Mr. President, as a naval lieutenant (j.g.) in the Navy, Mark Hatfield commanded landing craft in some of the bloodiest battles World War II in the Pacific. He was one of the first military officers to enter Hiroshima after the atomic blast destroyed that city in 1945. I was in the North Atlantic in Coast Guard escort duty during World War II, and I know some of the emotions Mark Hatfield's experiences must have stirred in him and the feelings that remain after. I can tell you that, if you have seen combat, it is quite possible for you to become zealous in your desire to find solutions other than war and other than military buildups to the problems you face. Among other things, having seen combat, you do not want to capriciously subject your children or anyone else's children or loved ones, to the horrors of war. The needless and pointless sacrifices of some conflicts, such as Vietnam, weighs heavily if you are in the position of participating in important national decisions, as Mark Hatfield has been. Senator Hatfield has spoken to us all on the floor with great eloquence over time about the value of arms control and of the importance of peace to all Americans. In 1990, he told the Senate: Peace is not the town in Pennsylvania which last year was forced to cancel its high school graduation because officials believed that a group of students planned to commit suicide at the ceremony. And peace is not here in Washington--where after leading the Nation in murders last year, children are beginning to show the same psychological trauma as children in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Can we really believe that the decisions we have made--and are making--do not have a direct relationship to the violence which plagues our Nation? I suggest that we consider changing the motto on our coins. Mr. President, It now reads: In God We Trust--but by blindly pursuing the nuclear arms race, by putting the destruction of life over the preservation of life, we have foresaken our trust in God. We have shaken our fist at God--as E.B. White once put it, we have stolen God's stuff. Our motto ought to be: In Bombs We Trust. That is our national ethic--that is the example we are setting--here, on this floor. In a time when too many opinions are formed on the basis of the latest polling results, it is good to have among us a Senator like Mark Hatfield who moves unswervingly ahead toward what he perceives on the basis of his intelligence and experience to be the best course for the Nation and to continue the avid pursuit of what he sees as truly best for all of the people of America. In his 30 years in the Senate Mark Hatfield has tried time and again to do what is right. He has been willing to live with defeat, but he has been steadfast in his willingness to try and try again, so long as a chance at victory is in sight. Mr. President, I am sure that the voters of Oregon, of Rhode Island, and of other States will do their best to make good choices in the next election. We will be replaced by people with different skills and capabilities, and many of them will have distinguished careers here in the Senate. There will not be another Mark Hatfield, however. The nation should be thankful that it has been blessed with Senator Hatfield's service.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, last Saturday afternoon, I joined some 15,000 of my fellow Rhode Islanders in a huge rally to welcome President Clinton to Providence. It was in Providence that the President announced his support for the omnibus appropriations bill that will soon be considered by this body. And it was in Providence that we heard the best news for education funding that we have heard in almost 2 years. Approval of the legislation before us will increase Federal education funding by more than 12 percent over last year. Because of the President's leadership and particularly because of his commitment to education, this increase stands in stark contrast to the dire predictions of drastic cuts in education programs that marked the beginning of this Congress. It is a dramatic and encouraging end to this session of Congress. Next year we will have the largest Pell grant in history. The maximum grant will be $2,700, an increase of $230 in one year. The number of low and middle income students receiving Pell grants will increase by 150,000. And the total number of students receiving Pell grants next year will reach 3.8 million. We have also strengthened our commitment to education reform by increasing appropriations for the Goals 2000 program by almost 29 percent and upping funds for professional development by more than 11 percent. We have provided a 16 percent increase in funding for Safe and Drug Free Schools. Less than 2 years ago we were fighting to keep this program from suffering a 40 percent cut. The title I program will be increased by some $470 million next year, and two-thirds of that increase will go to our most needy and deserving schools. Mr. President, in area after area in education we have good news and solid progress. This is an education budget we can cheer. It deserves our strong support. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to President Clinton and his administration for the strong leadership they have shown on behalf of education. And, we owe an equally enormous debt of gratitude to those from this body who played such an important part in helping fashion this agreement and bring forth such an encouraging education budget. In particular, I personally want to thank Senator Hatfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Specter, and Senator Harkin for the vital role they have played in this dramatic achievement. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will act with dispatch in approving this legislation I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, one aspect of the continuing resolution which troubles me deeply is the level of funding for assessed U.S. contributions to the United Nations and other international organizations of which the United States is a member. The administration's adjusted request for this account was $1.002 billion. The bill provides $892 million. This level is $110 million less than the request. It does not provide funds to pay any of our arrearages, and because it is insufficient to cover our assessments, the result will be further U.S. indebtedness, not only to the United Nations but also to some of its specialized agencies. I know that many on the other side of the aisle, and perhaps some on this side as well, believe that the only way we can force the United Nations to make the administrative and management reforms we all seek is to withhold some or all of our contributions. I think they misunderstand the nature of the United Nations, and the U.N. environment, and also the degree to which our contributions provide leverage. Certainly the United States is the last remaining superpower and the largest single contributor to the United Nations. But we are not the only power in the United Nations, and we cannot simply impose our demands on the organization. The United Nations is an organization comprised of 185 members. Many of the administrative and financial reforms that we hope to achieve must be voted on by the General Assembly. In order for us to succeed in that body, we must convince a majority of States that the proposed reform make sense, and do not hinder their own interests. For example, our effort to reduce the percentage of U.S. contributions to the United Nations will impact on the contributions made by other States, no doubt in the end requiring them to pay more. Certainly there are states that today can afford to pick up a greater share of the U.N.'s operating expenses. But we cannot force them to do so. We have to convince a majority of them, particularly the other major powers such as our European allies and Japan that changes in the assessment levels will, in the end, strengthen the United Nations as an institution, and thus be in the interest of all states. Our ability to build support for reforms at the United Nations has been eroded by Congress' refusal to provide the necessary funds for the United States to pay its dues to the United Nations. Initially, the threat of withholding contributions may have been effective. It isn't anymore. This tactic has simply made the United States into a deadbeat debtor. As of this month the United States owes a total of $1.7 billion to the United Nations--$414 million for the regular U.N. budget, $771 million for peacekeeping and $542 million for the specialized agencies. Our failure to pay has subjected us to sharp criticism, particularly from our key European allies who also contribute a fair share of the U.N. budget, and it has decreased, not increased, our leverage, particularly to promote reforms desired by the Congress. The United Nations is very much an unruly debating society. Every member has a voice and a vote. Consensus is the primary method of decision-making. Certainly the positions of the United States carry great weight but our demands and needs, even with our veto, are not the only defining factor. If we are serious about reforming the United Nations, we need to be serious about fulfilling our financial obligations to that institution. I hope that next year Congress and the administration will have a meeting of the minds on this issue. There must be agreement on a set of reforms that can be achieved over a reasonable time period and a formula for payment that will enable the United States to become current on its financial obligations. This kind of plan would make it clear to other U.N. members that the United States is serious, not only about reform but also about paying its dues. In my view, this is imperative if the United States is going to lead a successful reform effort at the United Nations. national institute of justice

Mr. PELL. That is correct. In 1994, Senator Chafee and I were able to include a similarly modest sum in the fund for the improvement of education for the Rhode Island Scholar Athlete Games. These games-- which brought together young people in our State of varied backgrounds to participate in educational and cultural competitions and demonstrations, as well as in athletic competitions--were an enormous success. This year, the funds will be used for the second World-Scholar Athlete Games which will bring together young people from around the world.

Mr. PELL. I would say to my colleague, yes, that is exactly correct. This sort of enterprise, which has been developed by Dan Doyle at URI, is a way to build bridges between nations, just as the Rhode Island Games were meant to build bridges between neighborhoods and towns.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as the 20th century draws to a close, we all find ourselves musing and marveling over the changes history has brought the world in this millennium. Human ingenuity has brought astounding advances in technology and in medicine. Society has also faced revolutionary changes and our forbearers who welcomed the year 1900 would little recognize the lives their descendants lead today. In politics, the 20th century brought new ways of thinking about the social contract between citizens and their government. Some, like fascism and communism, were dangerous and ultimately discredited failures. But democracy, the great experiment our Founding Fathers created on the shores of the New World, has not just endured but spread around the world. It has been my great delight to watch democracy begin to spread in Asia. Some would argue that it is not natural that democracy would grow in Asia. Some Asian leaders and intellectuals have actively resisted the idea that democracy be a political option for the region. They have argued that Asian values--loosely Confucian, authoritarian, and family- or group-focused rather than individually-focused--are inconsistent with democracy. These leaders further argue that the stunning economic success of the East Asian ``Tigers'' is specifically due to their more closed political systems and to their emphasis on social stability at the expense of individual voice and choice. Moreover, these same leaders will point to legitimate problems in many Western societies-- such as drug abuse, homelessness, violent crimes, to name a few--are the direct result of an overly permissive society that emphasizes individual freedom over social stability. But I believe that these cultural arguments distort reality and are often used as excuses for maintaining an authoritarian-style regime. Democracy precludes neither economic success nor social stability. In fact, the rapid economic development of many Asian countries has brought new social problems and pressures that perhaps only a more democratic political system can relieve. Take, for example, Taiwan. As income levels rose, individuals gained a new sense of control over their own and their children's futures. Many traveled to the West and sent their children to study in Western universities, where they learned of the plethora of opportunities--professional, social, and personal--that democratic societies offer their citizens. They returned with new ideas and new expectations of and for their own government. The authoritarian style of leadership that characterized the government under Chaing Kai-shek proved unable to meet the needs of the rising middle class in Taiwan and the government was forced to evolve. Taiwan's current president, Lee Teng-hui, deserves much credit for managing and even fostering the change. Perhaps as a just reward, Lee won a popular re-elected bid last March and became the first democratically-elected Chinese leader in history. Mr. President, the political and social system on Taiwan is far from perfect, something the leadership there readily admits. But Taiwan has managed an astounding economic and political transformation in a relatively short period of time, with little violence or social upheaval. I believe that Taiwan serves as a sharp rebuttal to those who say that traditional Asian values will not permit the growth of a healthy democracy. Other Asian states, including Japan and South Korea, have found democracy to be consistent with economic development. Now even Mongolia has chosen democracy as its path to a brighter future. Other Asian nations could benefit from following a Taiwan model of political reform. I find it unlikely that a country that is experiencing the rapid economic growth, technological development and social change that China is experiencing can long restrain the inevitable pressure for political changes as well. The military leaders in Burma have only hindered their country's economic development by forcibly resisting the results of democratic elections there. Indonesia, in particular, has reached a critical point in its economic and social development. There are clear signs that the developing middle class is restless and chaffing within the current restrictive political system. President Soeharto, who has done so many good things for his country's development already, could cement his legacy as a great leader by taking steps toward a more responsive and participatory political system. Such steps would serve to enhance his government's standing in the country and in the world, not diminish it. Mr. President, the U.S. cannot and should not ignore important cultural and historical differences between our own country and countries in Asia. There is much in Asian society that we in this country can learn from and we should be open to doing so. But Asian individuals are no less deserving of a responsive government and freedom of choice than their Western counterparts and cultural differences should not be used as a mask to conceal and support authoritarian regimes. It is very much in the U.S. interest to promote and support the trend toward democracy in Asia, as we have done for several decades. We do not know what changes the 21st century will bring to our world. But we can hope and expect that our descendants will enjoy greater peace and prosperity if our nation trades and cooperates with a democratized Asia. Individual freedom and choice are not exclusively Western values and promoting them around the world is not Western imperialism. The growth of democracy has brought great benefits to nations that adopted it and Asian nations deserve these benefits as well. The trend toward democracy is already there; we should do all we can to foster and encourage it.