Claiborne Pell

Claiborne Pell died today at the age of 90. I worked with him, although not for him, in the 1972 cycle of the reauthorization of the higher education act. I was the only staffer that worked for both sides of congress during the process. During the year leading up to that first Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, the Senate began its actions first. There was an interesting group of members of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee - Pell, from Rhode Island; Winston Prouty, who was the ranking member on the subcommittee from Vermont and in many ways had a similar demeanor as Pell; Jacob Javits, who was ranking on the full committee and an energetic leader in the committee and in the Senate. In that era, while they had significant disagreements about policy, they learned how to get along.

Pell was first elected to the Senate in 1960, Prouty in 1958 and Javits in 1956. Pell graduated from Princeton. Prouty had spent three years at Yale but then graduated from Lafayette, Javits graduated from NYU. Pell was an aristocrat, no doubt about it. Pell's family wealth came from a land grant from George III but also from a part of tobacco (Lorillard). His aristocratic nature was in no way negative. In committee hearings he drank only sparkling water, Vichy. There is a great story about him campaigning in one of his campaigns, and asking an aide for some rubbers. The aide came back with a pair and Pell asked “To whom am I indebted for these fine rubbers?” The aide said he had gotten them from Thom McAn. Pell supposedly replied to the aide “Well, do tell Mr. McAn that I am much obliged to him.” Prouty came from a relatively wealthy family, which owned a lumber mill. He, like Pell, had gone to prep school. Javits grew up in a hard-scrapple New York. He and his brother were lawyers. Pell and Prouty were republicans and Pell was a democrat but both the members and their staffs worked well together. I worked for Prouty. I don't think that any of the three were especially close personally - they did not seem to socialize. But they did try to work together. The staffs would frequently communicate on common issues such as higher education. That was encouraged by our respective bosses.

In 1971, when the Senate began to move a bill, a number of colleges were arguing for more direct aid to colleges from the federal government. A group of Catholic colleges argued in a report, called The Red and the Black, that without direct federal support they would fail. The major supporter of the direct provision of aid to colleges was Edith Green, a democratic congresswoman from Oregon who chaired the House subcommittee on Higher Education. Although she went to Wilamette and Stanford her undergraduate work was at Oregon. Pell rejected the arguments from the Catholic colleges and supported the creation of a new direct grant pro gram to students that is now called the Pell Grant, originally at $1400 per academic year.

The senate did a series of hearings to look at the issues for the upcoming bill including considering direct aid. Over the Spring came to a bill which created the Basic Education Opportunity Grant (BEOG now Pell). Green's subcommittee went a different way and proposed to add more aid directly to colleges. But Green's GOP members did not go along with the chair. In September of 1971 Prouty died and I went to work for Marvin Esch who was, like Prouty, the ranking member on the higher education subcommittee in the house. Al Quie, was like Javits, was a GOP ranking member on the full committee and from Minnesota. Marvin Esch, who had been a college professor in Michigan before being elected to the House was the ranking member on the subcommittee. They worked well together.

When the two bills went into conference (at that time conference committees were held in private) the committee finally got down to the key issue. Green proposed to have her approach prevail, expecting that she could get some of the GOP in the Senate and all of the House members to support her. But as the roll was called, beginning with Quie and Esch, Green lost. Pell prevailed and the rest is history.

Pell was, like Prouty, not much of a public presence. Neither seemed to care much about the making the news. Both cared a lot about policy. Pell did not avoid making news, indeed, during one confirmation hearing in the Clinton Administration he made a minor splash to help Roberta Achtenberg get confirmed as the first openly lesbian presidential appointee. But in that case as in the rest of his career he did his job with grace and intelligence. Prouty was succeeded by Robert Stafford, who carried on the tradition of intelligence in the Senate. Stafford was replaced by Jim Jeffords who in turn was succeeded by Bernie Sanders. Vermont senators seem on this seat to come from the lone house seat in the state. Javits' successor who beat him in 1980 was Alfonse D'Amato who was then succeeded by Charles Schumer. All three can be described as a lot more flamboyant than either of the New Englanders. But Javits, as opposed to his immediate successor and successor once removed, had the integrity of his other two colleagues. Pell, who had a strong interest in public support for the arts, once commented that he did not think much of some of the grants of the National Endowment. But he knew the importance of the separation of powers - his job was as a legislator.

The last time I saw Senator Pell was a few years ago. While his health was diminished he retained his grace. I am not sure that the current US Senate could find a place for someone like Pell, or for that matter, Prouty or Javits. Each were able politicians but they cared enough about the process to be able to disagree without rancor.