[Senate Document 104-17]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S.Doc. 104-17
Edmund S. Muskie
LATE A SENATOR FROM MAINE
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
IN THE CONGRESS OF
THE UNITED STATES
S. Doc. 104-17
Memorial Tributes
Delivered in Congress
Edmund S. Muskie
1914-1996
Late A Senator from Maine
---
Compiled under the direction
of the
Secretary of the Senate
by the
Office of Printing Services
CONTENTS
Biography.............................................
ix
Proceedings in the Senate:
Resolution of respect..............................
15
Tributes by Senators:
Baucus, Max, of Montana........................
4
Biden, Joseph R. Jr., of Delaware..............
2
Boxer, Barbara, of California..................
24
Cohen, William S., of Maine....................
16
Conrad, Kent, of North Dakota..................
23
Daschle, Thomas A., of South Dakota............
11
Dodd, Christopher J., of Connecticut...........
15
Domenici, Pete V., of New Mexico...............
9
Hollings, Ernest F., of South Carolina.........
2
Mikulski, Barbara A., of Maryland..............
13
Nunn, Sam, of Georgia..........................
20
Pell, Claiborne, of Rhode Island...............
1
Sarbanes, Paul S., of Maryland.................
21
Snowe, Olympia, of Maine.......................
5
Proceedings in the House:
Tributes by Representatives:
Baldacci, John Elias, of Maine.................
26
Longley, James, of Maine.......................
25
Moran, James P., of Virginia...................
26
Message from the Senate........................
27
Memorial Services for Edmund S. Muskie:
The Church of the Little Flower, Bethesda, MD......
31
Eulogies by:
Stephen O. Muskie...........................
34
The Hon. Leon G. Billings...................
35
The Hon. Madeleine K. Albright..............
36
Letter from President Bill Clinton.......
38
The Hon. George J. Mitchell.................
38
The Hon. Jimmy Carter.......................
41
Edmund S. Muskie, Jr........................
43
Reading the prayer written by his father
for the Presidential Prayer Breakfast..
43
Bates College Chapel, Lewiston, ME.................
45
Memorial reflections:
Mr. Donald W. Harward, president, Bates
College...................................
49
Remarks, Statements and Speeches:
Bates College Memorial Minute for Edmund S. Muskie.
57
Remembering Ed [Bates Magazine, Summer 1996]...
58
What Might Have Been, What Wonderfully Was,
[Bates Magazine, Summer 1996].................
60
Why Ed Muskie Mattered, The Policy Journal of the
Environmental Law Institute......................
63
Testimony of the Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, before
the Committee on Environment and Public Works....
69
NEPA to CERCLA, The Environmental Forum Journal....
73
The State of the Union, A Democratic View, remarks
by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Washington, DC......
81
Statements from the Congressional Record:
S. 1359, April 7, 1975.........................
89
Freedom of Information Act--Amendment No. 1356,
May 28, 1974..................................
92
Amendment No. 1356, May 30, 1974...............
92
S. 1142, March 8, 1973.........................
95
Our Failure to Plan for Our Nation's Growth,
November 20, 1973.............................
96
Liberal Party Dinner, New York City................
103
Remarks by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Cape
Elizabeth, ME....................................
109
Remarks by Senator Edmund S. Muskie on S. 3708.....
113
Inaugural Address of Edmund S. Muskie, Governor of
Maine to the Ninety-Eighth Legislature...........
119
Inaugural Address of Edmund S. Muskie, Governor of
Maine to the Ninety-Seventh Legislature..........
133
Roosevelt Campobello Park Commission Tribute to
Edmund Sixtus Muskie.............................
145
Letter to Senator Muskie establishing Franklin
D. Roosevelt Campobello International Memorial
Park..........................................
146
Articles and Editorials:
Edmund S. Muskie Dies at 81; Senator and Secretary
of State, The Washington Post....................
150
Edmund Muskie Dies, Senate Stalwart Was 81, Boston
Globe............................................
154
Edmund Muskie Dies at 81, Revered Statesman
Personified Maine, Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME)
156
Lofty Tributes Honor Solid, Humble Man; From Around
the State, People Fondly Recall Memories of Ed
Muskie, A Man Most Often Described as
Lincolnesque, Portland Press Herald...........
161
Edmund Muskie Dies of Heart Failure; Distinguished
Senator Brought Zeal to Office, Baltimore Sun....
163
A Leader in the Best Sense; Edmund Muskie, U.S.
Senator, Statesman, Dies at 81, Portland Press
Herald...........................................
165
Presidents, Politicians Remember `Legend,' `Hero',
Sun-Journal......................................
170
Ed Muskie, Bangor Daily News.......................
171
Muskie Brought Glory to His State and Nation; Maine
Shaped His Voice and His Character and Never Let
Go, Portland Press Herald........................
172
Maine Mourns Loss of `Giant,' Sun-Journal..........
173
Muskie Remembered for Service to Public, Ex-
Secretary of State Dies of Heart Failure, Des
Moines Register..................................
178
It All ended in Tears, Guardian Newspaper Limited..
179
Edmund S. Muskie, Washington Post..................
181
U.S. Loses Its `Mr. Clean,' Newsday................
182
Muskie's Legacy: Clean Air, Water, San Francisco
Examiner.........................................
184
McGovern, Muskie Bonded by New Hampshire, Bangor
Daily News.......................................
185
Muskie's Tears Were Ahead of Their Time, Dallas
Morning News.....................................
186
The Man Who Showed His Emotion Too Soon, Baltimore
Sun..............................................
187
Ed Muskie of Maine Gave Politics a Good Name, News
& Record (Greensboro, NC)........................
188
Edmund Muskie, The Economist.......................
189
To Senators and Clerk, Muskie Special Person,
Portland Press Herald............................
191
Muskie's Gift, Washington Post.....................
192
Muskie Coveted the Trust of Mainers, Bangor Daily
News (Bangor, ME)................................
194
Muskie Buried Amid Tributes to Environmentalism,
Washington Post..................................
195
Edmund Muskie, Our Engineering Officer, Dallas
Morning News.....................................
197
`Great Man' Laid to Rest; Muskie's Integrity,
Legacy Honored, Portland Press Herald............
197
Muskie Eulogized as Environmentalist, Negotiator;
Carter, Mitchell Speak at Funeral, Washington
Times............................................
199
Muskie: Reason to Weep, Washington Post............
201
As Sportsman and Statesman, Ed Muskie Was the
Finest Kind, Portland Press Herald...............
202
Nation Honors Maine's `Greatest'; Jimmy Carter,
George Mitchell Eulogize Muskie, Bangor Daily
News (Bangor, ME)................................
203
A Cleaner Androscoggin Is Muskie Monument, Bangor
Daily News (Bangor, ME)..........................
205
Ed Muskie and the Second Political Resurrection of
Richard Nixon, Los Angeles Times.................
206
The Man From Maine, Ellsworth American.............
209
Ed Muskie Still Heroic to Intimates, Montgomery
Advertiser.......................................
210
Remembering Secretary Muskie, Christian Science
Monitor..........................................
212
Edmund S. Muskie, Commonweal.......................
213
Remembering Ed Muskie, New Democrat................
215
BIOGRAPHY
Edmund Sixtus Muskie was born on March 28, 1914 in
Rumford ME, the second of six children. He was graduated
cum laude from Bates College in Lewiston, ME in 1936,
where he was a Phi Beta Kappa and class president. In 1939
he was graduated from Cornell University Law School. He
enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served in both the Atlantic
and Pacific theaters.
Mr. Muskie was elected to the Maine House of
Representatives in 1946, 1948, and 1950 where he served as
minority leader during his second and third terms. From
1951-52 he served as the State director of the Office of
Price Stabilization and was the Democratic National
Committeeman from 1952 to 1956.
Mr. Muskie was elected Governor of Maine in 1954 and
served two terms before being elected to the United States
Senate in 1958. During his 22 years in the Senate, he
served on the Foreign Relations Committee, the
Governmental Affairs Committee, the Environment and Public
Works Committee, and as Chairman of the Senate Committee
on the Budget. In 1968 he was the Democratic nominee for
Vice President.
He was the author of the autobiographical book,
Journeys, published in 1972 and has received over thirty
honorary degrees from colleges and universities throughout
the country.
Mr. Muskie was sworn in as the 58th Secretary of State
on May 8, 1980 and served until January, 1981. He was
currently a senior partner with Chadbourne & Parke, an
international law firm with offices in Washington, DC, New
York, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, London, Moscow and New
Delhi.
He was the Chairman Emeritus of the Institute for the
Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, Chairman
Emeritus of the Center for National Policy, and served on
the board of directors of the American Academy of
Diplomacy and the Committee for a Responsible Federal
Budget. In May of 1981, Mr. Muskie received the Notre Dame
Laetare Medal and the Distinguished Service Award from the
Association of Former Members of Congress. He also
received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in January,
1981.
Mr. Muskie was appointed by President Reagan in
December, 1986, to serve on the three-member Special
Review Board to investigate the role of the NSC in the
Iran/Contra affair. The Board's report was released in
March of 1987.
Mr. Muskie married the former Jane Gray of Waterville,
ME on May 29, 1948. The Muskies have five children--
Stephen, Ellen, Melinda, Martha and Edmund Jr.--as well as
seven grandchildren.
MEMORIAL TRIBUTES
to
EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Proceedings in the Senate
Tuesday, March 26, 1996.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in paying
respect to the memory of former Senator Edmund Muskie. He
was a very productive Member of this body and he made
great contributions to its deliberations and to the
welfare of our Nation. I admired him very much.
I first came to know Ed Muskie when he was Governor of
Maine and a delegate to our party's national conventions.
I always found him to be a person of great common sense
and practicality, traits that reflected his years of
experience in the Maine State Legislature and before that
as a city official in Waterville.
He was always a highly effective advocate for the
interests of New England, and in that role as in other
aspects of his wide ranging Senate career, he was capable
of displaying his sense of righteous indignation in the
interests of producing results.
Perhaps his greatest and most lasting contribution was
his work in securing enactment of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, and his subsequent service as the first
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Here his
practical vision saw the need for a consolidated
legislative budget that coordinated and reconciled
legislative appropriations with executive spending.
Ed Muskie's Senate career came to a sudden and
surprising conclusion with his elevation to the office of
Secretary of State in the Carter administration at the
height of the Iran crisis in 1980. It was a measure of
Senator Muskie's statute in the Senate and in the Nation
that President Carter turned to him at a time when
circumstances called for a steady and authoritative hand.
It was a fitting climax to a career of exceptionally
distinguished public service.
I join my colleagues in honoring the memory of Edmund
Muskie and I extend my sympathy to his wife Jane, family
and many associates in Maine and across the country.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a
moment to pay tribute to a colleague and friend of mine
who has just recently passed away. To those of us who were
here during the sixties and seventies, Edmund Muskie was
more than a fellow legislator, he was a model of what a
Senator should be. He was well liked and respected by all,
and he listened to his constituents closely, and he
effected change on their behalf.
To put it simply, Ed Muskie was the best. Today, with
all the talk about the Government being too big, and all
the public scorn for the establishment, it is easy to lose
sight of the optimism that used to be a driving force of
politics. Senator Muskie embodied that optimism; he looked
upon government as an opportunity, as a solution to
problems. Characteristically, he acted on these beliefs to
get things done. He led the demand for fiscal
responsibility. As the first chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee in 1974, he virtually created the budget
process. He will also be remembered as a great
environmental legislator. The Clean Water Act, the Clean
Air Act: these were not a part of Muskie's political
agenda due to pressure from lobbyists or special interest
groups. They were things that he believed were necessary,
and so he made them happen.
I knew Ed Muskie long before I came to the Senate, and
he always felt things keenly. I used to joke with him
about what I called his righteous indignation, but I
always respected the moral conviction and strength that
lay behind it. Senator Muskie detested the influence of
lobbies and partisanship, and what they were doing to
politics. He was in government to do a good job, not to
play games. He was--and in this city, this is a great
compliment--a man who got things done. The principles that
he lived by came through in his work, whether as a
Senator, a Secretary of State or as a lawyer and
statesman. He knew the importance of character and of
listening to the voter.
In 1970, Senator Muskie gave a memorable speech in which
he said: ``There are only two kinds of politics. They are
not radical and reactionary, or conservative and liberal,
or even Democratic and Republican. They are only the
politics of fear and the politics of trust.'' As we head
into another election year and another century, these are
words to remember. Ed Muskie was a champion of the
politics of trust. We will remember him fondly.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, few who ever served in this
body have been as universally mourned as those of us from
both sides of the aisle who knew him will mourn our former
colleague, Ed Muskie, who died here in Washington early
this morning.
The reports already circulating on the news wire
services and the obituaries that will appear in tomorrow's
newspapers, all will make much, and rightly so, out of his
long and distinguished service as a public man.
Few men or women in our history have contributed so much
to the Nation as Ed Muskie did as a U.S. Senator for 21
years and as Secretary of State; few have contributed as
much to their native State as Ed Muskie did as a member of
the Maine House of Representatives and as Governor of the
State he loved so much; and few have contributed as much
to one of the major political parties as Ed Muskie did to
the Democratic Party, which he served as a Vice
Presidential candidate in 1968 and as chairman of the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
It is fitting that, upon his death just 2 days before
his 82d birthday, Americans should be reminded of his long
and faithful public service and leadership--but those of
us who knew and served with Ed Muskie will remember him
more familiarly as a man of principle, as a powerful
personality, and, most of all, as our good friend.
One thing that I learned very quickly, serving with him
on the Budget Committee and the Foreign Relations
Committee, was that while he exhibited the gravitas--the
character and substance--that might be expected of a man
whose full given name was Edmund Sixtus Muskie, he was a
very human, very good-humored man--most of the time--who
was most comfortable simply as Ed Muskie, and who if he
was your friend was your friend for life.
It is true that his good humor would sometimes
momentarily desert him--he had a temper that verged on the
volcanic, and he was capable of weeping public tears over
an insult to the wife whom he loved--but those moments
occurred, for the most part, because Ed Muskie never
believed that a career in politics obliged his head to
divorce his heart; despite a powerful intellect that won
him a law degree, a Phi Beta Kappa key and a long,
successful career both in law and in politics, he never
believed that political feelings must somehow be set
aside.
He was passionate about his politics--he believed the
work we do here is important to improving the lives of
Americans--and he believed that what he felt was as
important to achieving that end as what he thought.
But though Ed Muskie sometimes wore his heart
unashamedly on his sleeve, he was also very much a Yankee,
very much a man of Maine, who put great stock in getting
things done, and getting them done at the right price.
By that I am not referring so much to his chairmanship
of the Budget Committee--although he certainly exerted a
strong hand at that helm, often to the dismay of
bureaucrats throughout the land and not infrequently to
Senate colleagues who failed to make a strong enough case
for their favorite program--no, for him, getting things
done at the right price meant achieving that meld of
idealism and realism which we often say a democratic
system of Government requires but which few of us ever
achieve with the grace and consistency of an Ed Muskie.
The people of Maine understood that as well as we did
here in the Senate, and he understood and loved them, as
well.
I remember him saying one time, ``in Maine, we tend not
to speak unless we think we can improve upon the
silence.''
Out of his wisdom, out of his passion, out of his drive
to get things done, Ed Muskie often spoke up for Maine and
for America--and we need only feel the silence of his
passing gather about us now to know how much he improved
upon it during a long and accomplished life.
In the words of William Shakespeare, ``he was a man,
take him for all in all, [we] shall not look upon his like
again.''
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this morning we were sad to
learn of the passing of one of our most distinguished
former colleagues, Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.
Ed Muskie served our Nation in many ways. He was a
soldier. A Governor. The first chairman of the Budget
Committee. The Secretary of State. The Democratic Party's
candidate for Vice President.
He also was responsible, in large part, for one of the
most positive and profound legislative achievements of
postwar America: the passage of the environmental laws of
the 1970's, to clean up our Nation's air, water, and
waste.
Remember what things were like 25 years ago. We had
experienced decades of industrial growth without
environmental protection. Lead in the air caused brain
damage in children. Toxic waste dumps all across the
country caused cancer. The Cuyahoga River even caught
fire.
Something had to be done. And, as chairman of the
Environmental Protection Subcommittee of the Environment
and Public Works Committee, Ed Muskie saw that it was. He
worked tirelessly to create bipartisan support for
landmark environmental laws.
The Clean Water Act, requiring rivers and streams to be
fishable and swimmable; the Clean Air Act, cutting
emissions from cars and factories; the Safe Drinking Water
Act; the Endangered Species Act.
These laws are not perfect. But, on the whole, they have
been remarkably successful. Our air is cleaner. Lead
emissions fell nearly 90 percent. To put it another way,
we took nearly five ounces of lead out of the sky for
every American man, woman, and child. Emissions of sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates are way down,
and half as many Americans live in cities with unhealthy
air as in 1970.
Our water is cleaner. You can swim without getting sick
and eat the fish you catch in twice as many rivers and
streams. Even the Cuyahoga River has revived, to become a
center for tourism in downtown Cleveland. The bald eagle
is back from the brink of extinction.
Overall, because of the work of Ed Muskie and his
colleagues, our children are growing up in a more healthy
and beautiful America.
Mr. President, I am reminded of the Latin epitaph on the
tomb of Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of St. Paul's
Cathedral. It's inside the cathedral, and it says, ``If
you would see his memorial, look around.''
So it is with Ed Muskie. If you wish to see his
memorial, look around you: at the air in our cities; at
the Potomac River, or the Cuyahoga; at a cleaner
environment from Maine to Montana; at a Nation that is
more healthy and more beautiful because of his work.
He was a great environmental statesman, and his passing
diminishes us.
Wednesday, March 27, 1996.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today with a heart full
of sadness, reflection, and fond memories of one of the
true giants of this institution--former Senator Edmund S.
Muskie of Maine.
Like millions of Americans across the country, I awoke
Tuesday to the news of Ed Muskie's passing. My heart goes
out to his wonderful wife, Jane, their five children,
grandchildren, and the entire Muskie family. I hope that
their grief is tempered with the knowledge that their loss
is shared by a Nation grateful for the life of a man who
gave so much.
Like many other Members of this body, upon hearing the
news, I found myself looking back on the remarkable career
and lasting legacy of this first son of Maine who became
one of the legendary figures in American political life.
Ed Muskie was a gentle lion. He sought consensus, but
backed down from no one. He fought for what he believed
in, and was loyal to his country. His greatest goal was to
leave this Earth a better place for generations of
Americans to come. And he succeeded.
Mr. President, as every citizen of my home State knows,
Ed Muskie transformed the political landscape of Maine.
Before he was elected Governor in 1954, Ed was fond of
saying ``the Democrats in Maine could caucus in a
telephone booth.'' Well, much to the chagrin of some
Republicans, Ed Muskie's election as Governor changed all
that. He was literally the creator of the modern
Democratic Party in Maine. After two 2-year terms as
Governor, he went on to become the very first popularly
elected Democratic Senator in Maine's history. And
ultimately, his distinguished career culminated in his
service to this Nation as Secretary of State.
But of all the positions he held in public service, it
was here--as a Member of this institution, Mr. President,
that Ed Muskie left his most indelible mark on history.
Whenever Washington gets mired down in partisan battles,
I think of the example set by Senator Muskie and his
Republican colleague, the late Senator Margaret Chase
Smith, who died last year. They worked together across
party lines on behalf of the people of Maine and the
Nation. Although they may have had differences, they were
united in their dedication to public service and to
reaching consensus. They represented the best of what
bipartisanship has to offer.
In our present-day budget battles, I think of Senator
Muskie, who helped shape the modern budget process as the
first-ever chairman of the Budget Committee. Ed possessed
a rare wisdom and discipline which allowed him to express
in very simple terms why it is so difficult to achieve
fiscal responsibility in the Congress. ``Members of
Congress,'' he once said ``have won reelection with a two-
part strategy: Talk like Scrooge on the campaign trail,
and vote like Santa Claus on the Senate floor.''
Ed brandished that incisive wit many times in this very
Chamber, Mr. President, and perhaps it was this humor,
along with his commonsense approach to political life,
that made Ed Muskie so effective throughout his remarkable
career.
During his 21 years in the Senate, Ed Muskie was known
for his moderation but he did not hesitate to tangle with
his colleagues when he felt passionately about an issue.
His reputation as a fighter was established early in his
Senatorial career when he went head-to-head with another
giant of this body, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.
One day, as the story goes, the freshman Senator from
Maine decided he just could not support the majority
leader on a particular issue. Now, crossing the leader of
your party is always risky, but that risk took on added
significance when the leader was Lyndon Baines Johnson.
But possessing a stubborn streak of downeast yankee
independence that perhaps only a fellow Mainer can
understand, Ed held his ground. He would not give in.
So, in his typically forgiving--and nonvindictive--way,
LBJ promptly assigned the freshman Senator his fourth,
fifth, and sixth committee choices.
From this rather dubious beginning, Ed Muskie landed a
seat on the not-so-choice Public Works Committee. The
rest, as they say, is history. It did not take him long to
leave his mark on Washington--or on the land that
stretches from the Allagash Wilderness of Maine, to the
Florida Everglades, to the Redwood forests of California.
You see, growing up in western Maine, Ed had developed a
deep appreciation for the environment. Thoroughly
committed and visionary, Senator Muskie helped transform
the Public Works Committee and went on to become the
founding father of environmental protection in America by
sponsoring both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act
of 1972. These two landmark pieces of legislation have
both produced enormous benefits to the health and well-
being of our Nation and its people. It is his unwavering
commitment to environmental protection that is, perhaps,
Ed Muskie's single greatest legacy to the American people.
He was indeed Mr. Clean.
With the news of his passing, my thoughts went back
almost 2 years ago to the day--because Ed Muskie's
birthday is March 28--when Ed and Jane Muskie, accompanied
by their children and grandchildren, came to celebrate
Ed's 80th birthday at the Blaine House, Maine's executive
mansion, as the guests of my husband Governor Jock
McKernan and me. It was a great privilege for us to give
Ed and Jane and their family an opportunity to come back
to a place that held some of their fondest memories. It
was a very special time for all of us. And they spent the
night. It was a truly honorable moment in my life.
That evening, Ed spoke passionately about the
opportunities he enjoyed as a young man, and of the
commitment and dedication that his parents had to their
family and their community. And he spoke of the love and
devotion that his father--a Polish immigrant--had for his
new Nation.
He spoke of how much his roots in the small town of
Rumford, ME, meant to him. It was those deep roots, along
with his strong sense of family, that gave Ed Muskie the
foundation upon which he would stand as he became a
leading figure in American political life. And he
cherished his father's roots, and from the standpoint that
he viewed it as America giving every opportunity to
anybody who sought to achieve.
I was struck with a very real sense of history listening
to his reminiscences during that visit. I do not think it
is possible for any Maine politician, regardless of party
affiliation, to have come of age during the Muskie era and
not have been influenced in some way by his presence. He
was that preeminent in the political life of my State.
Ed Muskie was a towering figure in every sense of the
word. In his physical stature, in his intellect, in his
presence on Capitol Hill, in the extent of his impact on
the political life of Maine, and in the integrity he
brought to bear in everything he did.
And Ed was thoroughly and proudly a Mainer, with the
quiet sense of humor associated with our State. Each year,
the distinguished senior Senator entertained guests at the
Maine State Society lobster dinner at the National Press
Club by rubbing the belly of a live lobster, causing it to
fall asleep, something only a real Mainer would know how
to do.
Personally, I will always remember and be grateful for
the warmth, friendship, and encouragement that Ed Muskie
gave me over the years. When I entered the U.S. House of
Representatives in 1979, I was the newest member of the
Maine congressional delegation. Ed was the dean of the
delegation. We were congressional colleagues for only a
year and a half, but our friendship lasted throughout the
years. And when I was elected to the seat which he had
held with such distinction, I was touched by his kindness,
and grateful for his advice and counsel.
Throughout his life, he never failed to answer the call
of duty. He answered the call from the people of Maine. .
. . He answered the call from America's rivers and streams
. . . and he answered a call from the President of the
United States and a worried Nation when Senator Muskie
became Secretary of State Muskie in a moment of national
crisis.
Mr. President, 75 years before Edmund Muskie was born,
another famous Mainer, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow,
captured what I believe is the essence of the wonderful
man we remember today. Longfellow wrote:
Lives of great men all remind us
we can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
footprints on the sands of time.
Ed Muskie's footprints remain on those sands. They are
there as a guide for those of us who would follow in his
path. They are big footprints, not easily filled. But we
would all do well to try.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I cannot speak about
Senator Ed Muskie with the depth of knowledge that Senator
Snowe had of his background and his impact on his beloved
State of Maine. But it has fallen to me to be, at every
stage of my growth in the Senate, on a committee with
Senator Muskie.
My first assignment was the Public Works Committee. I
was the most junior Republican, and Senator Muskie was the
third-ranking Democrat and chaired the Subcommittee on the
Environment. I also served on that subcommittee. I saw in
him a man of tremendous capability and dedication when he
undertook a cause. He learned everything there was to
learn about it, and he proceeded with that cause with the
kind of diligence and certainty that is not so often found
around here. There were various times during the evolution
of clean water and clean air statutes in the country that
we could go in one of two directions, or one of three.
Senator Muskie weighed those heavily, and chose the
direction and the course that we are on now.
No one can deny that Senator Muskie is the chief
architect of environmental cleanup of our air and water in
the United States. Some would argue about its regulatory
processes, but there can be no question that hundreds of
rivers across America are clean today because of Ed
Muskie. There can be no doubt that our air is cleaner and
safer and healthier because of his leadership. I really do
not think any person needs much more than that to be part
of their legacy.
But essentially he took on another job, and a very, very
difficult one--to chair the Budget Committee of the U.S.
Senate. Again, it fell on me as a very young Senator to be
on that committee. I have been on it ever since. I was
fortunate to move up. He became chairman in its earliest
days.
I might just say as an aside that the Chair would be
interested in this. When we moved the President's budget--
$6 billion in those days--that was a big, big thing, and
we had a real battle for it. He would take the
Presidents--no matter which ones--on with great, great
determination.
But I want to close by saying that one of the things I
will never forget about him is that he saw me as a young
Senator from New Mexico. I had a very large family. He got
to meet them and know them. On a number of occasions he
personally said that he would very much like to make sure
that we did not do things around here to discourage young
Senators like Domenici from staying here. I think he was
sincere, even though I was on the Republican side. I think
he saw us with an awful lot of feeling ourselves up here
in trying to establish rules that were very difficult, and
he used to regularly say, ``I hope this does not
discourage you. We need to keep some of you around.''
So to his wonderful family and to all of those close to
him, you have suffered a great loss, but I can say that
his life has been a great legacy for the country. That
ought to lend you in these days of sorrow a bit of
consolation, because that legacy is great. Death is
obviously inevitable. He accomplished great things before
that day occurred.
Mr. DASCHLE. On behalf of myself, Senator Dole, Senator
Cohen, and Senator Snowe, I send a resolution to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the
resolution.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 234) relative to the death of
Edmund S. Muskie.
Whereas, the Senate fondly remembers former Secretary of
State, former Governor of Maine, and former Senator from
Maine, Edmund S. Muskie,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie spent six years in the Maine
House of Representatives, becoming minority leader,
Whereas, in 1954, voters made Edmund S. Muskie the
State's first Democratic Governor in 20 years,
Whereas, after a second two-year term, he went on in
1958 to become the first popularly elected Democratic
Senator in Maine's history;
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie in 1968, was chosen as
Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie left the Senate to become
President Carter's Secretary of State,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie served with honor and
distinction in each of these capacities: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow
and deep regret the announcement of the death of the
Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, formerly a Senator from the
State of Maine.
Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these
resolutions to the House of Representatives and transmit
an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it
adjourns as a further mark of respect to the memory of the
deceased Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the
immediate consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to
consider the resolution.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the earliest days of our
Nation, George Washington said it was the duty of public
servants to ``raise a standard to which the wise and the
honest can repair.''
In his more than five decades as a public servant,
Senator Edmund Muskie not only raised the standard of
wisdom and honesty in public office. On many occasions and
in many ways, he set the standard.
Today I join my colleagues and, indeed, all of America,
in saying goodbye to this extraordinary American.
Senator Muskie served two terms as Governor of Maine--
something of a minor political miracle in such a rock-
ribbed Republican State.
He also served with great dignity and distinction as our
Nation's Secretary of State under President Carter.
But it was his service in this Chamber, and as his
party's candidate for Vice President, for which Senator
Muskie will be best remembered--and rightly so.
In 1974, I came to Washington as a Senate staffer.
Senator Muskie had already served 15 years.
What first impressed me about him was his compassion,
and his unshakable belief in the infinite possibilities of
America. It was a belief he learned from his immigrant
father, a belief that animated his entire life.
Ed Muskie knew that government cannot guarantee anyone
the good life. But government has a responsibility to help
people seize possibilities to make a good life for
themselves, their families and their communities.
He held other beliefs deeply as well.
Ed Muskie believed that we have an obligation to be good
stewards of this fragile planet.
He was an expert on air and water pollution, and he
served as floor manager for two of the most important
environmental laws ever--the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the
Water Quality Act of 1965.
Ed Muskie believed that more was needed to solve the
problem of poverty than money from Washington. Thirty
years ago, he called for a new creative federalism.
``No matter how much the Federal partner provides,'' he
said, ``no Federal legislation, no executive order, no
administrative establishment can get to the heart of most
of the basic problems confronting the State governments
today.''
Ed Muskie believed that politics ought to be a contest
of ideas, not an endless series of personal attacks.
In 1970, Ed Muskie was the presumptive front-runner for
his party's 1972 Presidential nomination. In that role, he
was the victim of malicious and false attacks.
Rather than counter-attack, Senator Muskie appealed for
reason and decency and truth. I want to quote from a
televised speech he made back then, because I think it
bears repeating today.
``In these elections . . . something has gone wrong,''
he said.
There has been name calling and deception of almost
unprecedented volume. Honorable men have been slandered.
Faithful servants of the country have had their motives
questioned and their patriotism doubted. . . .
The danger from this assault is not that a few more
Democrats might be defeated--the country can survive that.
The true danger is that the American people will have been
deprived of that public debate, that opportunity for fair
judgment, which is the heartbeat of the democratic
process. And that is something the country cannot afford.
Senator Muskie went on to say:
There are only two kinds of politics. They are not
radical or reactionary, or conservative and liberal, or
even Democratic or Republicans. They are only the politics
of fear, and the politics of trust.
Senator Muskie believed in the politics of trust.
And he believed in honest negotiation. Testifying before
the Senate a few years ago, Senator Muskie said, ``There's
always a way to talk.''
There is always a way to talk.
In his later years, Senator Muskie helped found an
organization called the Center for National Priorities to
find new ways to talk in a reasoned manner about the big
problems facing our Nation.
Today, we mourn Ed Muskie's death. But let us also
celebrate his extraordinary life. And let us rededicate
ourselves to the beliefs that shaped that life.
The belief that America is and must remain a land of
possibilities--for all of us.
The belief that we must protect our environment.
The belief that it takes more than money alone to solve
our problems. It takes hard work and personal
responsibility, and people working together.
Let us rededicate ourselves to Senator Muskie's belief
the politics can and should be a contest of ideas, and
that we have a responsibility to talk straight to the
American people.
And let us remember that we have a responsibility to
talk straight to each other. There are many great and
urgent issues facing this chamber.
There must be a way we can talk.
Ed Muskie is gone. But we can keep his spirit alive in
this chamber. The choice is ours.
In closing, I offer my deepest condolences to Senator
Muskie's widow, Jane, to their children, and to his many
friends the world over.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the
resolution is agreed to.
The resolution (S. Res. 234) was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to
the remarkable life of Edmund S. Muskie.
He was a great American, a true statesman, and I'm proud
to say, a good friend.
Mr. President, I am the first woman of Polish heritage
ever elected to the Senate. Ed Muskie took great pride in
my election, since we shared a common heritage and a
common set of values. He was gracious in helping me to
learn the ways of the Senate. He was a strong mentor, and
I have always been appreciative of the sound advice and
concrete suggestions he offered to me.
He offered all of us a model of what a Senator should
be. He stuck to principles, never afraid to take on the
powers that be. He fought hard for what he believed in,
but he bore no grudges. Edmund Muskie believed, as I do,
that programs must deliver what they promise.
He made change his ally, and was never wedded to the
past. If what we had been doing wasn't working, he fought
to fix it. And he sought always to build consensus, to
serve as a voice of moderation and practicality--in
keeping with his New England roots.
I was proud to be a national cochair of his campaign for
the Presidency in 1972. It still strikes me as a great
injustice that this good and decent man never had the
opportunity to hold the highest office in the land. What a
wonderful President he would have been.
Although he never realized his dream of becoming
President, his contributions to our Nation were immense.
Edmund Muskie deserves the thanks of all Americans for
his decades of public service. All of us who cherish our
wilderness areas owe him a debt of gratitude for his
steadfast defense of our environment as a distinguished
Senator for 21 years. He was the father of the Clean Air
Act and the Clean Water Act. The air we breathe is cleaner
and the water we drink more pure because of Senator
Muskie's dedication to environmental protection.
Those of us who care about fiscal responsibility--about
making sure that America's hardworking taxpayers get a
dollar's worth of services for a dollar's worth of taxes--
owe him thanks for his stewardship of the Senate Budget
Committee. As chairman of the committee, Senator Muskie
fought to curb excessive Federal spending, while also
ensuring that the Government did not turn its back on
those seeking a helping hand.
We owe him thanks for his service as Secretary of State
under President Carter. He undertook that important
responsibility at a difficult and sensitive time--while
the President was working to free American hostages being
held in Iran. And he fulfilled his duties with honor and
wisdom.
Those of us who are Democrats also owe him a special
debt. Virtually single-handedly he revitalized a dormant
Democratic party in his beloved State of Maine. He became
Maine's first Democratic Governor in 20 years.
Without him, the Senate might never had been honored by
the service of our former Majority Leader, George
Mitchell, and the United Nations might never had benefited
from the enormous contributions of Madeleine Albright. He
mentored them both, providing them with some of their
first experiences in government.
Mr. President, America is a better place because of the
dedicated public service over many decades of Edmund S.
Muskie. I thank him and honor him for his service to our
country.
My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, Jane, his
children and the entire Muskie family.
Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Cohen, and Ms.
Snowe) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 234
Whereas, the Senate fondly remembers former Secretary of
State, former Governor of Maine, and former Senator from
Maine, Edmund S. Muskie,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie spent six years in the Maine
House of Representatives, becoming minority leader,
Whereas, in 1954, voters made Edmund S. Muskie the
State's first Democratic Governor in 20 years,
Whereas, after a second two-year term, he went on in
1958 to become the first popularly elected Democratic
Senator in Maine's history,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie in 1968, was chosen as
Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie left the Senate to become
President Carter's Secretary of State,
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie served with honor and
distinction in each of these capacities: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow
and deep regret the announcement of the death of the
Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, formerly a Senator from the
State of Maine.
Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these
resolutions to the House of Representatives and transmit
an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it
adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the
deceased Senator.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments
today to speak about the death of former Senator Edmund
Muskie.
I first met Ed Muskie during his visits to my family's
house in Connecticut more than 30 years ago as he traveled
back to Maine from Washington.
And like my father before me--I was honored to serve
with him in Congress. I came to greatly admire and respect
his leadership, his conviction, his knowledge and his
great devotion to public service.
Edmund Muskie was a truly dedicated member of this body
for 22 years. He served both the people of Maine and all
the American people as a committed and able legislator.
And when his party and his President called on him he
answered. He twice ran for national office as a Democrat:
Once for Vice-President in 1968 and once for the
Democratic nomination for President in 1972. And he
finished his career as Secretary of State, under President
Carter in 1980.
Throughout his more than two decades of public service
Ed Muskie was ahead of his time in his efforts to keep our
environment clean and America's fiscal house in order.
He earned the apt nickname ``Mr. Clean'' for his
pioneering work on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act,
both of which he shepherded through the Senate.
Generations from now, when Americans are enjoying our safe
and healthy air and water, they should thank Edmund Muskie
for having the foresight and vision to place a clean
environment on top of the political agenda.
And even before the era of exploding Federal deficits in
the 1980's, Edmund Muskie strived to bring fiscal
discipline to Congress, as chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee.
Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter said he had
``never known any American leader who was more highly
qualified to be President of the United States.'' And it
is to the American people's misfortune that a man of such
principle never had the opportunity to reach the Oval
Office.
As a fellow Democrat and Northeasterner I remain
committed to the policies that Edmund Muskie so
energetically championed as a U.S. Senator.
My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Jane, his
children, his friends and the people of Maine.
Thursday, March 29, 1996.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, last Tuesday, the State of
Maine and the entire Nation mourned the loss of a
political giant, Edmund S. Muskie.
From Maine to California, the newspapers are filled with
long stories detailing and encapsulating the life and
times of Ed Muskie and his accomplishments. There were
columns that appeared in the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Bangor Daily News,
the Portland Press Herald--all across the country.
While each of the articles was written from the unique
perspective of the authors, there were common elements in
each one of them. The articles spoke of Senator Muskie's
intellect, which indeed was muscular. They spoke of his
integrity, which was unquestioned. They spoke of his
candor, which was unmatched. They spoke of his courage,
which I think was incomparable.
He took on some of the most powerful interests in this
country and, never once, did he ever flinch, he never
sought favor, and never acted out of fear. He was indeed a
brave heart.
He was careful, and some say he was cautious.
I read a tribute recently, which I will quote:
Perhaps the strongest feature in his character was
prudence, never acting until every circumstance, every
consideration, was maturely weighed; refraining when he
saw doubt, but when once decided, going through with his
purpose whatever obstacles opposed. His integrity was the
most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever
known, no motives or interest or consanguinity, or
friendship or hatred being able to bias his decision. He
was indeed, in every sense of the words, a wise, a good,
and a great man.
These words were not about Ed Muskie. These are the
words of Thomas Jefferson assessing the character of
George Washington. But they might just as well have been
said about Ed Muskie.
In Ecclesiastes, the question is asked, ``What is best
for men to do during their few days of life under the
sun?''
Well, it was clear from the very beginning what the
answer was for Ed Muskie. He was not born to be a
spectator or a bystander. He did not come into this world
to sit in a darkened theater and express his approval or
rejection of those on stage.
He knew, as Justice Holmes before him knew, that ``Life
is action and passion, and we must share in that action
and passion at the risk of being judged not to have
lived.''
Ed Muskie was at the very center of the action of his
days--whether it was on the civil rights legislation, or
protecting the environment, or waging the fight to control
the budget, as chairman of the Budget Committee, or
promoting America's role in a dangerous world, as the
Secretary of State.
When he was on the Senate floor in full-throated debate,
and when he blended that magnificent mind of his with the
rhetorical power and grace of the orator, then he became
one with the poet Hopkins, who said, ``What I do is for
me; for this I care.''
Dr. Robert Sheehan once wrote, ``The world belongs to
those who laugh and cry. Laughter is the beginning of
wisdom, the first evidence of the divine sense of humor.
Those who know laughter have learned the secret of
living.''
Well, Ed laughed a lot. He had a wry, down-east Yankee
wit. He loved a good cigar, a good story, and he loved a
good joke.
While passion was his virtue, it was also said to be his
vice. He had a cool, cerebral intellect, but he also had a
quick and, some would say, also Vesuvian temper,
particularly when he witnessed an injustice being done, an
act of hypocrisy or unfairness being inflicted. He had
little tolerance for character assassination.
We are all familiar with that fateful moment in New
Hampshire when he was standing on a flatbed during a
snowfall. Ed Muskie decided that he had enough of the
dirty tricks that were being practiced upon him at that
time, enough of the daily diatribes that appeared in one
of New Hampshire's newspapers. But, of course, he was not
the only object of attack that week. He rose on that day
to denounce the attacks against his wife, Jane, as being
mean and cowardly. There was one prominent journalist,
David Broder, who wrote that Senator Muskie appeared to be
crying during that time--although, to this day, there is
some question as to whether they were actually snowflakes
falling or streaming down his cheeks, as opposed to tears.
But it was a moment in history--a turning point in his
campaign for the Presidency because many, after that
moment, judged him to be too passionate to be President.
There is some irony in the retelling of this story and
this event because, some 16 years later, another
Democratic candidate for the Presidency was thought to be
too cool, too bland, and bloodless in his response to a
question about what he would do if his wife had been
raped.
So we have come to learn that politics is not a sport
where the rules are always well defined, or indeed
consistent.
Some people who have run unsuccessfully for the
Presidency are broken by the experience. Defeat never
shattered Ed Muskie's love of politics and his love for
this institution. He possessed an inner self-confidence
and self-awareness of his place in the uncompleted puzzle
of existence. It was a serenity which permitted him to
continue to serve nobly in the Senate and then later as
Secretary of State.
Mr. President, back in 1976, I had given consideration
to running against Senator Muskie. I was then a young
Congressman from the Second Congressional District of
Maine. I was being urged, indeed, to run against Senator
Muskie. I was pondering. I thought about it for a long
time. I retreated to Sugarloaf Mountain in Maine to
contemplate whether or not I would take this great step. I
had with me at that time a book called ``Zen and the Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance'' written by Robert Pirsig. It
was one of the most intellectually challenging books I
think I had read at that time.
As I was reading through the book, the decision really
clicked into my mind. I came across the words of Pirsig
when he said:
When you try to climb a mountain to prove how big you
are, you almost never make it. And even if you do, it's a
hollow victory. In order to sustain the victory you have
to prove yourself again and again in some other way, and
again and again and again, driven forever to fill a false
image, haunted by the fear that the image is not true and
someone will find out. That's never the way. . . .
I knew, upon reading these words, that I was in danger
of letting my own ambition race beyond my abilities and
that even if I could defeat Ed Muskie--and the polls
showed me doing that--I knew in my heart that I would need
a fistful of four-leaf clovers and a whole lot of money.
Even then in my heart of hearts I knew that it would be a
tough race for me to run, and that, even if I were to
win--which was always in doubt--the State of Maine and
this country would not have been well served. He was by
far a superior man, and history has proven that to be the
case.
So I declined to enter the race. I called Ed Muskie and
told him of my decision--never revealing at that time that
I had been reading ``Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance'' which helped me reach that conclusion.
John Kennedy once remarked that when the high court of
history sits in judgment on each of us, recording in our
brief span of service whether we fulfilled our
responsibilities, our success will be measured by the
answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage?
Second, were we truly men of judgment?
Third, were we truly men of integrity?
Fourth, were we truly men of dedication?
As history judges Ed Muskie, the answer to each of these
questions is an unqualified ``yes.'' These are the very
qualities that characterized his service in Government. He
will be remembered as one of the finest public servants to
ever have graced the Governor's Mansion in Maine, the U.S.
Senate, and the Office of Secretary of State.
Tomorrow when he is laid to rest in Arlington National
Cemetery, Ed Muskie will be in the hearts and in the minds
of the people of Maine and this country and shall remain
there for generations to come.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise to join with my fellow
Senators in mourning the death of former Senator Edmund S.
Muskie of Maine, and in paying tribute to one of the most
distinguished and influential Members of this body during
a turbulent period in our history.
Ed Muskie worked his way through Bates College, where he
was a Phi Beta Kappa, and earned a scholarship to
Cornell's law school. After serving in the Navy on
destroyer escorts during World War II, he was elected to
the Maine House, where he served as minority leader. He
won the Governorship of Maine during the Eisenhower years
when no Democrat had held the office in 20 years, and was
easily reelected. He revitalized the State party and was
elected and reelected to the U.S. Senate until his
resignation to become Secretary of State in 1980 during
the last difficult months of the Iran hostage crisis. It
was a time of great tension following the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan, during which the United States boycotted
the Olympic games in Moscow.
Ed Muskie was Hubert Humphrey's Vice-Presidential
running mate in 1968. Few people remember how close that
election was, and one reason it was so close was the
strength Ed Muskie brought to the ticket. He started out
the frontrunner, but his own campaign for the Presidential
nomination in 1972 was unsuccessful, damaged by the dirty
tricks the Nation would only learn about only later. It is
ironic, but a tribute to the man, that the most damaging
thing his enemies could point to in his conduct was that
he loved his wife enough to lose his usual control when
they attempted to slander her.
Senator Muskie returned to the Senate and in 1974 became
the first chairman of the Budget Committee. I had the
privilege of serving with him on the committee during my
formative early years in the Senate. He was a strong voice
for budget stability. The processes he established for
monitoring Federal spending, and his insistence on holding
down spending across a broad range, including the areas of
his own major concerns. This is the same process being
used today in our attempt to achieve a balanced budget by
2007.
Senator Muskie deserves major credit for most of the
important early environmental legislation. He held
together fragile coalitions of liberals and conservatives
in budget battles, challenged Presidential policies and
his own wing of the Democratic party for its failure to
change. Through it all, he earned the respect of both
allies and foes.
After his stint as Secretary of State, he retired to
private law practice. He returned briefly to public
service in 1987 on the Special Review Board on the Iran-
Contra Scandal, also known as the Tower Commission.
Ed Muskie was a big man, big enough to still the voices
of hecklers by inviting them up on the platform with him,
big enough early in his Senate career to stand up to
Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson at the height of his power,
and big enough to gain the respect of his fellow Senators,
and of Johnson himself. He believed in what he called a
politics of trust, not of fear.
Ed Muskie was often described as ``Lincolnesque.'' His
middle name, Sixtus, was the name of five Popes during the
15th and 16th centuries. His last name had been shortened
by immigration officials from what they considered the
unpronounceable Polish name of his forefathers when his
father arrived at Ellis Island. But whatever people called
him, wherever his names came from, Ed Muskie was his own
man.
What we remember is not the occasional flash of temper
but his modesty, moderation, and self-deprecating humor,
and his capacity for bridging differences. He was a man of
great humanity who stood for reason and reconciliation in
a time of division and disunity.
Ed Muskie graced this body with his healing and imposing
presence, his self-deprecating humor, and his personal
integrity for 21 years. He served his State and country
courageously for more than three decades. I am honored to
have served with him, and want to express my deepest
sympathy, and that of this body, to Jane, his wonderful
wife of 48 years, and to their children Stephen, Ellen,
Melinda, Martha, and Edmund, Jr.
Thursday, April 18, 1996.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to
our wonderful colleague and dear friend Ed Muskie who
passed away late last month. A distinguished public
servant, an accomplished legislator, and a man of great
integrity and humanity, Edmund Sixtus Muskie represented
the best of the Senate and of the Nation.
Throughout his career in public service Senator Muskie
exhibited a rare and remarkable gift; his extraordinary
ability to see opportunities where others could not and to
translate those opportunities into positive changes for
the people of Maine and the Nation.
Ed Muskie began his career of dedicated public service
in the Maine Legislature where he initially served as part
of a small Democratic minority. From this modest
beginning, he assumed the reins of the Maine Democratic
party and revitalized it by exercising the vision and
leadership necessary to involve people more fully in the
political process. His efforts led to his own election as
Maine's first Democratic Governor in 20 years, and in
1958, he became the first popularly elected Democratic
Senator in Maine's history.
But the depth and breadth of Ed Muskie's vision extended
far beyond Maine politics. Upon his arrival in the U.S.
Senate, he continued to exhibit the same
straightforwardness and independent thinking that won him
the trust of the citizens of Maine. These traits enabled
him to make the Environment and Public Works Committee the
forum which produced this Nation's landmark environmental
protection legislation, the Clean Air Act and the Water
Quality Act. These critical environmental statutes changed
the way Americans view our precious natural resources and
his work provided the foundation upon which all subsequent
environmental protection statutes have been built.
In addition, his efforts were instrumental to the
passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
establishing the beginnings of the modern coordinated
Congressional budget process. As the first chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee, Ed Muskie was committed to the
effective disciplined Federal spending; demonstrating that
promoting fiscal responsibility and meeting the needs of
our people were complementary objectives.
Throughout his lifetime of public service, Ed Muskie was
a man his country could turn to in a time of crises. As a
U.S. Senator, a Vice-Presidential and then Presidential
candidate, and as Secretary of State, he demonstrated an
unsurpassed commitment to improving the welfare of all
Americans. In his candid, forthright and honest way, he
encouraged the free exchange of ideas within the
democratic process, working to transcend partisan
boundaries and foster what he called a ``politics of
trust'' in this Nation.
One of his many legacies to our country is the large
number of former Muskie staff members who under his
leadership made such extraordinary contributions to our
Nation's welfare. Many of these individuals continue to
render dedicated public service and they constitute a
national asset which is yet another tribute to Ed Muskie's
sterling qualities.
Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity not
only to honor the life and service of Edmund Muskie, but
to extend my deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his wife,
Jane, and to his children, Stephen, Ellen, Melinda,
Martha, and Ned, and their families. We thank them for
sharing their husband and father with the Nation--America
is a far better place for Ed Muskie's contributions.
On Saturday, March 30, 1996, an exceptionally moving
service for Ed Muskie was held at the Church of the Little
Flower in Bethesda, MD, followed by burial at Arlington
National Cemetery. At that service, eloquent and heartfelt
eulogies were delivered which greatly moved all of us who
were present. In testimony to Ed Muskie's life of quality
and honor, I ask unanimous consent that these eulogies be
printed in the Record.
[Reference on page 34.]
Friday, April 29, 1996.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the death of Ed Muskie marks
a deep personal loss for me, and a loss for our Nation.
Senator Muskie was a close personal friend and leader in
both the Senate and our national political scene. As a
young man, I can remember my admiration for his integrity
and dedication when I served as a midwestern State
coordinator for his Presidential campaign in 1972. In the
Senate he was the leader in urging creation of a Senate
Budget Committee so the Chamber would have a committee
with a board overview of the budget process. In this time
of public concern over the Federal budget, it is important
we remember that as the first chairman of the Budget
Committee, Senator Muskie warned the Congress and the
Nation of the need to balance our Federal budget to
protect America's future. Those of us who serve on the
committee today are still mindful of the foresight he
showed, and are working to see that his legacy is
fulfilled. Americans of this generation also owe a debt to
the former Senator from Maine for his vision and his
tireless efforts in awakening Congress and the Nation to
the critical importance of enacting comprehensive laws to
protect our Nation's environment for future generations.
Our Nation owes him a deep debt of gratitude we can never
repay.
Friday, April 29, 1996.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as all Senators know, former
Senator Edmund S. Muskie passed away on March 26, two days
before his 82d birthday. Senator Muskie served in this
body from January, 1959, until May 1980, when he resigned
to become Secretary of State in the Carter administration.
As a freshman Senator, Ed Muskie ardently desired a
position on the Foreign Relations Committee. He was
disappointed to be appointed to the Public Works Committee
instead. But his loss proved to be the Nation's gain. As a
Member of the Public Works Committee, later the chairman
of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, Senator
Muskie became the chief architect of America's first
environmental laws.
At the funeral service for Senator Muskie, his protege
and former chief of staff, George Mitchell, who took
Muskie's Senate seat and went on to become the Senate
majority leader, delivered a wonderful tribute to Senator
Muskie's environmental leadership. I would like to share
his remarks with the Senate today by asking unanimous
consent that they be printed in the Congressional Record
at this point.
[Reference on page 38.]
Mrs. BOXER. Finally, Mr. President, I would also like to
share with my colleagues a beautiful prayer, written by
Senator Muskie for the occasion of the Presidential Prayer
Breakfast in January, 1969. The message of this prayer--a
plea on behalf of all public officials for mutual trust
and understanding, cooperation and compassion--is more
relevant today than ever. I ask unanimous consent that the
full text of the prayer be printed in the Record.
[Reference on page 43.]
Proceedings in the House
Tuesday, March 26, 1996.
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty this
afternoon to inform the House of the passing of Senator
Edmund Muskie of Maine this morning at about 4 a.m.
Senator Muskie was 81 years of age, a graduate of Bates
College and Cornell University Law School, a very
distinguished public servant of the citizens of Maine and
of the United States. He served three terms in the Maine
House of Representatives in 1946 and 1948 and 1950,
including a final term as the Democratic floor leader. In
1955, he was elected Governor, he served a second term,
and he followed that with a career in the U.S. Senate that
began in 1958.
In 1968, he was Democratic candidate for Vice President
of the United States and built and earned a tremendous
national reputation for his decency, his compassion and
his moderation during that difficult time during the end
of the Vietnam war. He also served as Secretary of State
in the Cabinet of President Jimmy Carter from 1980 to
1981.
While there are many distinctions that we can discuss,
not the least among them is the Senator's accomplishment
in creating a second party, making Maine a two-party
State, which is in the best interest of all of our
citizens, but certainly as his legislative accomplishments
on the national level are beyond peer, particularly in the
area of environmental protection.
Senator Muskie was the author of many of the first
pieces of legislation that this body passed back in the
early 1960's dealing with the need to protect the quality
of our air and our water. There are other issues that I
could mention, but I think none more important than the
fact that Senator Muskie was a kind and decent man who
exercised and practiced respect for all of his
constituents and all those with whom he had dealings. His
demeanor is going to be missed. Certainly his integrity
and his honesty are universally respected.
So we mourn his passing and we also express to his wife,
Jane, and his five children, Steven, Ellen, Melinda,
Martha, and Edmund, Jr., our deep and sincere regret at
his passing.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Democratic
minority, it is appropriate to take note of a
distinguished Governor, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State,
and Vice Presidential candidate. It is on Ed Muskie's
shoulders that much of the intellectual foundation of our
foreign policy rests in terms of the primary of human
rights and the sustainable progress of economic
development throughout the world. It was on Senator
Muskie's watch and on his shoulders that these priorities
were defined and promoted.
It is also appropriate to say that it was on his giant
shoulders, that were so strong with integrity, that many
of us lesser public servants have attempted to stand.
Senator Muskie always stood tall and made us all proud to
be public servants, and we deeply mourn his passing.
Wednesday, March 27, 1996.
Mr. BALDACCI. Madam Speaker, I was deeply saddened to
learn yesterday of the death of Senator Ed Muskie. As a
new Member of Congress from Maine, I have been privileged
to call on Ed Muskie for advice and wisdom.
Ed Muskie was a leader for Maine and a statesman for the
Nation. He never lost sight of his roots, nor wavered from
his principles.
The people of Maine and the Nation are indebted to Ed
Muskie for his passionate work on a wide range of issues.
His vision in developing environmental legislation,
especially the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, is a legacy
which will be recognized and honored by generations to
come.
We can all learn much from the life that Ed Muskie led.
I will never forget the advice that he gave to me shortly
before I took office. He said, ``Be yourself, work hard,
and tell the truth.'' Those simple principles guided his
life, and are what I strive to live up to every day.
Senator Muskie's devotion to Maine and his dedication to
improving the quality of life for all Americans will long
be remembered and appreciated. I know that my colleagues
join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to Ed Muskie's
wife, Jane, and the rest of his family.
Thursday, March 28, 1996.
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its
clerks, announced that the Senate agreed to the following
resolution:
S. Res. 234
Whereas, the Senate fondly remembers former Secretary of
State, former Governor of Maine, and former Senator from
Maine, Edmund S. Muskie;
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie spent six years in the Maine
House of Representatives, becoming minority leader;
Whereas, in 1954, voters made Edmund S. Muskie the
State's first Democratic Governor in 20 years;
Whereas, after a second two-year term, he went on in
1958 to become the first popularly elected Democratic
Senator in Maine's history;
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie in 1968, was chosen as
Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee;
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie left the Senate to become
President Carter's Secretary of State; and
Whereas, Edmund S. Muskie served with honor and
distinction in each of these capacities: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow
and deep regret the announcement of the death of the
Honorable Edmund S. Muskie, formerly a Senator from the
State of Maine.
Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these
resolutions to the House of Representatives and transmit
an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it
adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the
deceased Senator.
Memorial Services for
Edmund Sixtus Muskie
A SERVICE
in
THANKSGIVING
for
THE LIFE
of
The Honorable
Edmund Sixtus Muskie
The Church of the Little Flower
Bethesda, Maryland
MARCH 30, 1996
PROGRAM
Entrance Hymn--On Eagle's Wings
First Reading--Book of Wisdom 3:1-9
Melinda Muskie Stanton
Responsorial Psalm
Second Reading--2 Corinthians: 4:14-5:1
Ellen Muskie Allen
Gospel--John 14:1-6
Homily
Prayers of the Faithful
Offertory Hymn--Be Not Afraid
Offertory Procession
Martha Muskie and Members of the family
Communion Hymns
Amazing Grace
Taste and See
Closing Prayer
Eulogies
Stephen O. Muskie
The Hon. Leon G. Billings
The Hon. Madeleine K. Albright
The Hon. George J. Mitchell
The Hon. Jimmy Carter
Edmund S. Muskie, Jr.
Recessional--Battle Hymn of the Republic
Clergy
Monsignor William J. Kane, Main Celebrant
James Cardinal Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, in
attendance
Bishop Joseph Gerry, Bishop of Portland, in attendance
Organist
Christopher Candela
Remarks of Steve Muskie
Reverend Clergy, President and Mrs. Carter, Ed Muskie
colleagues, family and friends. From my mother and
everyone in our family, I want to thank you for coming
here today to remember and honor my father. I expect that
you will hear others speak about Dad's political life and
the work he did over his long career of public service.
But I would like to take a few minutes to tell you a
little about some of the things that we, his wife,
children and grandchildren, remember fondly. Thursday
night we had a family dinner to celebrate Dad's 82nd
birthday. We drank a toast to him, sang happy birthday and
the youngest of Mom and Dad's seven grandchildren blew out
the candles on two birthday cakes that we brought to the
party. Of course, the celebration was bittersweet because
Dad was not physically present. But he was present in
spirit, in the thoughts of all of us who learned from him
and loved him, you could see and hear the evidence all
around the room--in the sixteen people there--some blood
relations, others bonded by marriage into the Muskie
family. I saw it in their mannerisms, vocal inflections,
proclivity for puns or quiet contemplation, in a hearty
laugh or a mischievous twinkle of an eye. They were the
telltale signs of Dad's lasting imprint on our lives. We
have all been recalling images of Dad, many of which had
been lost for a long time, tucked away in the recesses of
our memories. For me, one of the most vivid is an image of
cold summer mornings at our Birch Point cottage on Maine's
China Lake, 40 years ago. The odor of smoke and the
crackling sound of a fire just coming to life greeted
Ellen and me when we padded down the stairs and climbed
onto Dad's lap as he sat next to the fireplace in a big
leather chair. While we warmed ourselves by the fire it
was Dad's want to repeat the story that we most enjoyed
hearing, a tale of young Biddo Bear who woke one cold
morning, just as we had, and went with his father on a
fishing trip. The story was replete with the kind of sound
effects the public never heard from Dad during speeches.
For example, Dad talked about Biddo Bear's father's tug on
the starter cord of their small boat's outboard motor--
Paroom! Putt-putt-putt! ``They drove down the lake to
catch some fishies,'' he said. That was a time when Dad
was Governor and the demands on his time were less than
they were by the time the last of his children were almost
grown. My brother Ned recalls that even when Dad was
Secretary of State, he regularly showed up at school,
casually dressed and surrounded by security agents to
attend a baseball game in which Ned might be pitching or
to help Ned haul luggage and boxes into a new dormitory
room. Ned of course swears the security agents didn't do
any of the work.
Another powerful image is of Dad seated at the dining
table surrounded by several of the youngest grandchildren.
They always wanted to be near him at meal time, because he
inevitably played games with them, walking his fingers
across the table to tickle them or to catch their tiny
hands in his big ones until Mom gently chastised him ``now
stop that poppa.'' The kids grinned feeling they had
gotten away with something. As much as I would like to
stand here displaying my photographs of Dad, these images
and others like them are much more powerful than those
captured by a camera because they improve and evolve with
age and the mix of other memories we recall. They will
never leave us. However wonderful and comforting those
images are, more important are the lessons we learned and
the characters we developed as a result of watching and
trying to follow Dad's strong examples. My youngest
sister, Martha, told me yesterday that her interest in
social work really grew from some of those examples. She
said,
``Dad believed that all people really are equal.
That the color of your skin, the source of your
beliefs, where you live or how much money you have
doesn't matter.''
When Greg Singleton, from the SW side of Washington,
lived with us for several summers, ``it was never any
question,'' said Martha, ``that he would be treated
exactly like the rest of us.'' Martha's statement made me
realize that we have all grown up and lived under the
strong influence of both the public and private Ed Muskie.
Today we acknowledge our love and gratitude and share with
you a celebration of his life.
a
Leon Billings
People who loved Ed Muskie, welcome. As was so often the
case in the 30 years I worked for Ed Muskie, 15 of which I
was paid, I have the honor of speaking for the staff.
Those who actually worked for the Senator and those he
thought worked for him. The nameless, faceless staff. A
couple of years ago, I had lunch with the Senator. By then
I was in my early 50s, about the same age he was when he
hired me. I decided that I could start calling him Ed. So
we sat down and I used his first name and he looked at me
and said, so its going to be Ed now is it? So Senator . .
. Before I tell a couple stories I remember of some of our
lighter moments, I want to say something about your role
as this Nation's most important environmental leader. Many
times you would take a globe of the earth in your hand and
point out that the earth's atmosphere was no thicker than
that thin patina of shellac that covered that globe. And
you would say, ``that's all that protects human life. That
thin layer, no thicker than that layer of shellac is all
that is between humankind and extinction.'' That analogy
in simple terms stated your commitment to achievement of a
healthy environment. A concept you invented, a concept you
institutionalized and a concept that you
internationalized. You changed the way the world acts
towards the environment. That legacy will endure as long
as people breathe on this earth. From the Clean Air Act of
1970 to Global 2000 as Senator and Secretary of State, you
took a problem too few people cared about and converted it
into a movement and then into a reality. I recall after
the Senate unanimously passed the Clean Air Act in 1970,
Senator Eugene McCarthy said to the Senator in the
elevator, he said ``Ed,'' (he could call him Ed) he said,
``Ed you found an issue better than motherhood, there are
even some people opposed to motherhood.'' So everyone
here, please take a deep breath, and while holding that
breath think just for a moment that each of us, our
children, our grandchildren and the children of centuries
yet to come, owe a single debt to you, Senator Muskie.
Sometimes working for you wasn't a day at the beach. But
we were rewarded by your brilliance, your courageousness
and your creative public policy mind. You evinced
incredible loyalty. People stayed with you for years, for
decades. What a luxury it was to be associated with
someone about whom there were no doubt, no doubts about
intellect, commitment and integrity. And Senator you gave
us a lifetime of stories. Some are even repeatable. Each
of us has a favorite and I'm going to tell a couple.
Senator Muskie was an avid fisherman and though I was
never invited to accompany him, I want to recall two
occasions both of which involved President Carter. On the
way back from the funeral of Prime Minister Ohira in
Japan, the President and Senator Muskie went fishing in
Alaska. And when they came back I learned that the
President had caught many fish, and the Senator got one. I
asked him to explain the difference and he said gruffly,
``its easy to catch them if the secret service ties them
down.'' And you know that's all the explanation I got!
On the other occasion, and this will be particularly
memorable to some of you who are on the Senate staff. I
was on the Senate floor during a budget debate and he
called me over. I assumed he wanted my advice on the issue
at hand. He said, ``I can't find my fishing pole.'' He
said, ``President Carter is coming to Maine to fish and I
can't find my fishing pole.'' So I called Gayle Cory, the
longest and the loyalist of the Muskie staffers. She was
out at his house and I asked her to find the pole and I
went back and said, Gayle is at the house and she'll find
the pole. And he said, ``Gayle wouldn't know what a
fishing pole looks like.'' Needless to say, Gayle found
the pole, I didn't have to go out to the house to look for
it, and I never learned how many fish he caught on the
trip.
I want to close with one story which will be poignant to
those who had the opportunity to travel with the Senator,
and particularly to Jane, I think. The Senator always took
the window seat on an airplane and the staff, and Jane,
sat on the aisle to ward off intruders. It was his want to
get on a plane and lose himself in a book or magazine and
sometimes not talk to anyone for the entire 5 hour trip.
On the occasion that Eliot Cutler remembers on a trip to
Los Angeles, the Senator said not a word and at the end of
the trip as they arrived to the gate, Eliot got up to
proffer him his coat and he looked at Eliot and he said
``what are you doing here?'' He is smiling now, because I
suspect he would say to us today, ``what are we doing
here?'' Senator we came here to say good-bye. We came here
to say thank you for 5 decades of public service and
personal friendship and most of all, we came here to thank
you for being the first steward of the planet earth.
a
Madeleine Albright
Dear friends, my heart is sad for I have lost a friend.
I asked myself why I feel such a void. It's not only the
personal memories, memories that I share with many of you,
although that is surely a part of it. It is also the fear
that what Edmund Muskie represented, what he lived for and
stood for, might somehow go with him. He has been our
connection to each other, he has been our link to a proud
democratic heritage. He gave validity to a vision of our
country and service to it that has influenced each of our
lives. There is an army of us in Washington, Maine and
around the country who worked for him as he rose through
the ranks of service to America. Whether we were
interested in State government or just plain good
government, clean air and water, a budget process that
worked, a generous foreign policy that reflected our
goodness and strength or just because we believed that
politics and principles go together. He attracted us. Even
today, when members of the Muskie team see each other
anywhere, we exchange the political equivalent of the
high-five. The reason that such a diverse group would have
so much in common is that Ed Muskie didn't see his public
service as compartmentalized. The Federal Government was
not the enemy of State government. Democrats could work
with Republicans. A healthy environment was important not
only here, but globally. While as budget chairman, he
often asked what was so liberal about wasting money, he
worried about jobs and he never denied the resources
needed to keep America strong. Can you imagine that he
actually believed in the United Nations and Foreign Aid,
not only when he was Secretary of State, but even when he
was in the Senate. Edmund Muskie made history because he
understood history. A lot of it he read, a lot of it he
experienced personally and what he didn't know, he asked
about. All of us who have been on the receiving end know
how persistently he could ask questions. The look on his
face or the ``not so gentle'' reproach when we didn't know
the answers became an enormous incentive to learn. As a
result, we grew with him. In his book we all, but mostly
he himself, were accountable. His roots became ours. The
great American leaders and their principles became ours.
When he arrived at the State Department in May 1980,
having been named by President Carter, he brought with him
his capacity for endless questions. He brought Leon,
Carole, Gayle and Berl. The foreign policy bureaucracy had
a bit of trouble with the approach, not to mention with
Leon. In the Department and over at the National Security
Council, there were rumblings. ``Why all these questions
about environmental consequences, fiscal implications,
congressional consultations and public opinion.'' As
Secretary of State he did not leave his old identities
behind. He was still Mr. Clean, the father of the budget
process, the chief sponsor of the War Powers Act, an
elected official responsive to the people. Still he
insisted on looking at all sides, still he wanted to
reason everything out. That is why he got along so
famously with his deputy, Warren Christopher, another who
values principle and reason. Together, they worked
patiently to answer the questions and solve the problems
our Nation faced. Most important they negotiated the safe
return of the hostages from Iran. Reuniting families and
leaving for the successor administration a clean slate
from which to begin. When he left his official foreign
policy post, along with the rest of us in January, 1981,
he simply began pursuing public policy by private means.
Although he was quite in the opposition he did not use his
various platforms or chairmanships, of the Center for
National Policy and Georgetown's Institute for the Study
of Diplomacy to mention two of my favorites, for the
politics of protest but characteristically for the
politics of healing. For example to consider mending
relations with Cambodia and Vietnam, and in this, as in so
many other things he was often ahead of his time.
Before I end with a personal message from President
Clinton, I must say one more thing. I would obviously be
here in my capacity as a proud member of the Muskie
political family no matter what. But I would definitely
not be here or anywhere else representing the President of
the United States if it were not for Ed Muskie. It might
not be the right answer for feminist groups and I do love
Eleanor Roosevelt. But the truth is that this man was my
role model. While we all had a good laugh when he
sometimes slipped into political incorrect vocabulary or
shielded his female staff members from some of his salted
language, he was the man who earlier than others enabled
women to take their place as public servants. Because he
had faith in us, we had faith in ourselves. He was the
first to name a woman, Karen Hastie-Williams, Chief
Counsel of the Budget Committee, as head of the
Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin, he gave me the
responsibility as his chief legislative director, for
coordinating Leon, Al From, Doug Bennett and John McEvoy.
The U.N. Security Council is a piece of cake. No wonder I
learned about the politics of foreign policy. Finally I
want to read a letter,
Dear Jane,
Hillary and I were so sorry to learn of Ed's death
and our hearts go out to you. Our Nation was blessed
to have Edmund Muskie in public service for so long.
As Governor, as Senator and Secretary of State. He
was a leader of conscience and conviction and I will
always be grateful for his wise counsel. His broad
knowledge of both international and domestic
affairs. His stalwart protection of our precious
natural resources and his unshakable integrity as a
public figure and private citizen earned him support
of millions of Americans and the respect of all of
us who were privileged to know him. As a mark of
that respect, citizens across our country and around
the world are lowering the American flag to half
staff today. Hillary and I extend our deepest
sympathy to you and your family and we hope you will
take comfort in remembering that your husband has
left an enduring legacy of public service that
continues to inspire us all. We are keeping you in
our thoughts and prayers.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton,
President of the United States.
Dearest Jane, thank you for sharing this great man with
us.
a
George Mitchell
Jane, Steve and Lexi, Ellen and Ernie, Melinda and
Eddie, Martha, Ned and Julia, and other members of the
family, Cardinal Hickey, Bishop Gerry and other members of
the clergy, President and Mrs. Carter and other
distinguished guests and friends of Ed Muskie. Senator
Muskie once said that he didn't like being called
``Lincolnesque'' but it fit. With his lanky frame, his
long and craggy face, his powerful voice, he was an
imposing figure. He was loved and trusted by the people of
Maine because they saw in him the qualities they most
admire, independence, fairness, the lack of pretense, the
willingness to speak the truth even when it hurt. He was
plain spoken even blunt at times and they admired him for
it. He had his faults and he made mistakes as do all human
beings but he conquered his faults and he learned from his
mistakes and as a result, he became the greatest public
official in Maine's history and one of the most effective
legislators in our Nation's history. He accomplished much
in a long and distinguished career. In that impressive
record, nothing surpasses what he did to protect America's
natural environment. Harry Truman once said that men make
history, not the other way around. In periods where there
is no leadership society stands still. Progress occurs
when courageous skillful leaders seize the opportunity to
change things for the better. Ed Muskie changed things for
the better. When he went to the Senate, there were no
national environmental laws, there was no environmental
movement, there was hardly an awareness of the problem.
Industries and municipalities dumped their wastes into the
nearest river and America's waters were, for the most
part, stinking open sewers. The air was unhealthy, the
water polluted, Ed Muskie changed that. It's one thing to
write and pass a law, it's another thing to change the way
people live, it's yet another and a far more difficult
thing to change the way people think. Ed Muskie did that.
With knowledge, skill, determination and patience he won
approval of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act and
America was changed forever for the better. Any American
who wants to know what Ed Muskie's legacy is need only go
to the nearest river. Before Ed Muskie it was almost
surely not fit to drink or to swim or to fish in, because
of Ed Muskie it is now almost surely clean. A source of
recreation, even revenue. Despite the efforts of some to
turn back the clock, these landmark laws will survive
because the American people know what a difference he has
made in their lives. It has been said that what we do for
ourselves, leaves this world with us, what we do for
others remains behind. That's our legacy, our link with
immortality. Ed Muskie's legacy will stand as a living
memorial to his vision. It is his immortality. Each of us
could say much more about Ed Muskie's public career but we
are here today to pay tribute to Ed Muskie the man, so I
would like to say a few words about the man who was my
hero, my mentor, my friend. Thirty-four years ago this
week, I received a telephone call that changed my life. It
was from Don Nicoll, Senator Muskie's administrative
assistant and close friend who is here today. He invited
me to come up to Capitol Hill to meet the Senator who was
looking for someone from Maine to fill a vacancy on his
staff. To help him evaluate me, Don asked that I prepare a
memorandum on the legal aspects of an issue that was then
being considered by the Senate. I prepared the memo and
went up for the interview. I thought the memo was pretty
good, but unknowingly I had made a huge mistake. I reached
a conclusion that was the opposite of the Senator's. I had
never met him but he didn't bother with any small talk.
Within minutes of our introduction, he unleashed a
ferocious cross-examination. He came out from behind his
desk, he towered over me, he shook his finger at me and he
took my memo apart, line by line. I was stunned, so
intimidated that I couldn't control the shaking of my legs
even though I was sitting down. I tried as best as I could
to explain my point of view and we had what you might call
a lively discussion. As I left he said the next time you
come in here, you'll be better prepared. That's how I
learned I'd been hired and I sure was better prepared the
next time. Ed Muskie was even more imposing intellectually
than he was physically. He was the smartest person that I
ever met with an incisive analytical mind that enabled him
to see every aspect of a problem and instantly to identify
possible solutions. He challenged everyone around him to
rise to his level of excellence. No one quite reached his
level, but those who took up the challenge were improved
by the effort. Those who knew him learned from that
relationship, those of us who worked for him, most of all.
Just about everything I know about politics and government
I learned from him. Just about everything I have
accomplished in public life, can be traced to his help. No
one ever had a better mentor or a better friend. No
discussion of Ed Muskie would be complete without mention
of his legendary temper. After he became Secretary of
State, a news magazine in an article described his temper
as entirely tactical, something that he turned on and off
at will to help him get his way. I saw him a few days
later, he showed me the article, in fact he read it to me,
and then he said laughingly, ``all these years you thought
my temper was for real.'' Well, I said, you sure fooled
me, and a lot of other people. I think the reality is that
it was both. When he yelled at you it was terrifyingly
real, but you could never be sure that it wasn't also a
tactic to move you his way, to get you to do what he
wanted done and that's the way he wanted it and liked it.
Almost as unnerving as one of his eruptions was the
swiftness with which it passed and was forgotten. He was a
passionate man and expressed himself with emotion. His
point having been made, he moved on, he didn't believe in
looking back or nursing grudges and maybe that's how he
got past the disappointments he suffered. It surely also
helped that he was a secure man, confident in, and
comfortable with his values. Those values were simple, yet
universal in their reach and enduring in their strength.
They were faith, family and country. He was constant in
his faith. He was comforted by it and he was motivated by
its message. The prayer printed on the back of the program
today written by Senator Muskie more than a quarter
century ago with its emphasis on compassion and tolerance
was the essence of his faith. He was totally devoted to
his family, especially to Jane. They would have celebrated
their 48th anniversary in May and for all those years, she
supported him, she comforted him, she helped him. He was a
passionate believer in democracy and especially in
American democracy. I had the privilege of traveling all
over Maine and all this country with him. Back when I was
on Senator Muskie's staff we didn't have the resources
available today so we used to share a motel room in small
towns all across Maine as I drove him from one appearance
to another. And I can recall the many times he spoke of
his Father who he greatly admired and who he was very much
influenced by. His Father was a Polish immigrant who, like
many others who fled from tyranny, flourished in the free
air of this blessed land. No person I have ever heard and
few in our history could match Ed Muskie's eloquence on
the meaning of America. Once in public office, his
profound respect for American democracy led him to act
always with dignity and restraint, lest he dishonor those
he represented. As a result, he was the ideal in public
service, a man who accomplished much without ever
compromising his principles or his dignity. Character is
what you are when you are alone in the dark as well as
with others in the daylight. Ed Muskie's character was
strong. Strong enough to light up other people's lives. He
taught us that integrity is more important than winning.
That real knowledge counts more than slogans or sound
bites. That we should live our values rather than parading
them for public approval. Many years ago, Maine's greatest
poet, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, wrote of another great
man these words: ``Were a star quenched on high for ages
would its light still traveling downward from the sky
shine on our mortal sight. So when a great man dies for
years beyond our kin, the light he leaves behind him lies
upon the paths of men.'' A great man has died and for
years his life will shine upon our paths. Goodbye Ed, may
God bless you and welcome you.
a
President Jimmy Carter
Ed Muskie had the appearance, the mannerisms, the
actions of a true statesman. I first knew about him when I
became Governor and faced the almost overwhelming lobbying
pressure from the power companies with their smokestacks
spewing forth black smoke and the thirteen pulp mills in
our State that were destroying our rivers. I saw the
difficulty then of an incredible political battle. But
there was a hero in Washington which has been mentioned
several times who faced much greater lobbying pressure
from nationwide pollutants of our streams and air. Ed
Muskie changed all of that. One of my heroes in Georgia
was Dr. Benjamin Mays, a graduate of Bates College which
was very close to Ed Muskie. And in an unpublicized way,
Ed Muskie was also a champion of basic civil rights at a
time when it wasn't popular to be so. And he and Dr.
Benjamin Mays worked hand-in-hand to inspire people like
me and other governors and public servants around the
country who looked on him with great admiration. I hope
everyone here will read the prayer on the back of the
program that George just mentioned that was given by Ed
Muskie at a Presidential prayer breakfast in 1969, and see
how pertinent it is to our Nation's Capitol today, how Ed
Muskie is needed. He saw then a budget problem in
Washington and he decided to do something about it. He
helped orchestrate and get passed a new budget law. He
became the first Chairman of the Budget Committee and
despite the equally formidable challenges that we now
face, that he faced then, he was able to bring order out
of chaos and to work harmoniously not only with the
Senators, but Members of the House of Representatives,
jealous of their own prerogatives and with the Presidents
who served with him. Democrats and Republicans, President
Nixon, President Ford, and me. I think that Ed was so
successful in bringing this coalition together and healing
the disparities between Capitol Hill and the White House,
because when he spoke you knew at least three things:
First, he deeply believed what he said, second, he knew
what he was talking about, and third, it was the absolute
truth. So I admired him from a distance until the Spring
of 1972 when Ed was campaigning for President and he came
down to Atlanta for a fund-raiser. I very eagerly invited
him to spend the night with me at the Governor's mansion
because of my admiration and because I had in the back of
my mind, you won't believe this, the thought that he was
going to get the nomination and he might be looking for a
southern governor to be his running mate. So I wanted to
make a good impression on him and I wanted him to think
that I was a little more sophisticated than I was. So that
night in the so-called Presidential suite in the front of
the Governor's mansion, late at night he was very tired,
he had been campaigning all day and I said ``Senator would
you like to have a drink?'' He said ``yes Governor I
believe I would.'' I said ``well what would you like,'' he
said ``I'd like Scotch and milk.'' I was taken aback. I
knew about Bourbon and Branch Water and a few other drinks
of that kind but I tried to put on the appearance of being
knowledgeable and I left him in the room and went down to
the kitchen to prepare a drink. I got about halfway down
the hall and a terrible question came to me and I went
back into the room and I think ruined all my chances of
being on the ticket. I said ``is that sweet milk or
buttermilk?'' He very gently said ``sweet milk.'' Later
when I was elected President, I turned to Ed Muskie as one
of my closest and most valued advisers. He was still a
hero to me and I turned to him often. In 1980, as some of
you would remember, my administration was in trouble.
Fifty-three hostages were still being held by militants in
Iran. In April we tried to rescue them and my Secretary of
State in protest resigned with a great deal of public
fanfare. I was facing a revolution in my own party from
Senator Kennedy and others who were more liberal than I
and it seemed very doubtful that I would even be
renominated as an incumbent President. I turned to Ed
Muskie who had a secure seat in the U.S. Senate and I
asked him if he would serve as Secretary of State, and
after checking with George and others, he said ``yes.'' In
a way I thought that I was doing him a big favor but when
we had the little ceremony in the White House, I
introduced him as the new Secretary of State being willing
to serve and his comment was, ``Mr. President, I'm not
going to say thanks, I'm going to wait a few months and
then make a judgment about whether I thank you or not.''
But he brought to the State Department, as Madeleine just
pointed out, his formidable knowledge as a long-time
Chairman of the Budget Committee, of every domestic and
foreign policy program that our Nation had and that
statesmanship from Maine that let the Members of our
Congress, the people of our Nation and leaders throughout
the world know, that here was a man who spoke with
absolute integrity. When the Prime Minister of Japan
passed away, Ohira, who was one of my closest friends as
Leon has pointed out, I wasn't going to mention this, we
went to the funeral with a very devout expression on our
face but arranged to stop in Alaska for a day of fishing
which Ed suggested as a way for me to forget my troubles,.
I don't guess he was worried about his own troubles. We
went to a little lake about an hour and one-half
helicopter flight from Anchorage and were fishing for
Grayling and I have to confirm part of Leon's story, I did
catch 15 or 20 Grayling, the Secret Service were quite a
distance from me I might add, and Ed only caught one fish.
So after we got through fishing, Ed came up to me and said
``Mr. President, I'd like to make a comment about the
trip'' and I waited for his approval and he said ``you
really need to practice your cast'' and I said ``thank you
very much, Mr. Secretary.'' Later he sent me a wonderful
fishing rod that I still have Leon. In the last few days
of our administration it was Ed Muskie's integrity, his
sound judgment, his wisdom and his determination and his
patience that had made it possible for us to bring every
hostage home, safe into freedom. Typically, Ed Muskie did
not seek any credit for that achievement, he let others
take the credit. I looked up last night the citation I
read when I gave Ed Muskie the Presidential Medal of
Freedom. ``As Senator and Secretary of State, candidate
and citizen, Edmund Muskie has captured for himself a
place in the public eye and in the public's heart. Devoted
to his Nation and our ideals, he has performed heroically
and with great fortitude in a time of great challenge.''
His response was you forgot that I was also Governor. This
week I made a statement about my friend Ed Muskie and I
closed the statement by saying of all the people I've ever
known, no one was better qualified to be President of the
United States--but Jane, I'd like to say now that I don't
believe many Presidents in history have ever contributed
as much to the quality of life of people in our Nation and
around the world as your husband, Edmund Muskie. I am
grateful to him. Thank you very much.
a
Edmund S. Muskie, Jr.
I could not be more proud than to be here to read to you
a prayer that my father wrote. He delivered this prayer at
the Presidential prayer breakfast here in Washington, DC
in January of 1969.
``Our Father, we are gathered here this morning,
perplexed and deeply troubled. We are grateful for
the many blessings You have bestowed upon us--the
great resources of land and people--the freedom to
apply them to uses of our own choosing--the
successes which have marked our efforts.
We are perplexed that, notwithstanding these
blessings, we have not succeeded in making possible
a life of promise for all our people in that growing
dissatisfaction threatens our unity and our progress
towards peace and justice.
We are deeply troubled that we may not be able to
agree upon the common purposes and the basis for
mutual trust which are essential if we are to
overcome these difficulties.
And so, our Father, we turn to you for help.
Teach us to listen to one another, with the kind
of attention which is receptive to points of view,
however different, with a healthy skepticism as to
our own infallibility.
Teach us to understand one another with the kind
of sensitivity which springs from deeply-seated
sympathy and compassion.
Teach us to trust one another, beyond mere
tolerance, with a willingness to take the chance on
the perfectibility of our fellow men.
Teach us to help one another, beyond charity, in
the kind of mutual involvement which is essential if
a free society is to work. We ask it in Jesus' name,
Amen.''
MEMORIAL SERVICE
in
GRATEFUL MEMORY
of
The Honorable
Edmund Sixtus Muskie
Bates College Chapel
Lewiston, Maine
APRIL 28, 1996
Choir Preludes
Agnus dei--from Requiem Mass--Gabriel Faure
Lamb of God who takest away the sins of the world:
Grant
them eternal rest. Let light perpetual shine upon
them, Lord,
we pray: with all they saints in endless glory,
for thy tender
mercy's sake. Grant them eternal rest, Lord, we
pray to thee:
and light perpetual shine on them.
In Paradisum from Requiem Mass--Gabriel Faure
God's holy angel lead you to paradise: may saints
in
their glory receive you at your journey's end,
guiding your
footsteps into the Holy City Jerusalem. Choir of
angels sing
you to your rest: and with Lazarus raised to
eternal life,
may you rest in peace forevermore.
Word of Welcome
song of gathering--amazing grace, john newton, 1779
Amazing grace (how sweet the sound)
that saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found
was blind, but now I see.
'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
and grace my fears relieved;
how precious did that grace appear
the hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils, and snares,
I have already come;
'tis grace that brought me safe thus far,
and grace will lead me home.
The Lord has promised good to me,
his word my hope secures;
he will my shield and portion be
as long as life endures.
And, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
and mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess, within the veil,
a life of joy and peace.
Greeting
Prayer
Please rise.
Liturgy of the Word
Reading
Wisdom 3:1-9
Psalm 91
Congregational Response--On Eagle's Wings
Reading
2 Corinthians 4:14-5:1
Gospel Acclamation
Celtic Alleluia
Gospel
John 14:1-6
Homily
General Intercessions
Sung Response--Lord Hear Our Prayer
Lord's Prayer
Memorial Reflections
Hon. Angus King
Mr. Donald W. Harward
Hon. Frank M. Coffin
Mr. Shepard Lee
Hon. William S. Cohen
Hon. George J. Mitchell
Mr. Stephen O. Muskie
Closing Rite
Final Prayer and Commendation
Closing Hymn
Shall We Gather at the River
Please Rise.
Participants in the Liturgy
President and Homilist
Most Reverend Joseph Gerry, OSB, Catholic Bishop of
Portland
Attending Presbyters
Reverend Vincent A. Tartarczuk, Pastor to Holy Martyrs
Parish, Falmouth
Reverend Michael J. Henchal, Co-chancellor of the Diocese
of Portland
Reverend W. Larch Fidler IV, Chaplain, Bates College
Proclaimers of the Word
Ms. Ellen Muskie Allen
Mr. Donald E. Nicoll
Chaplain to Bates College
Reverend Wesley D. Avram
Ministers of Music
Ms. Suzanne Proulx Powell, Cantor
Mr. John H. Corrie, Director of the Choir
Mr. Marion R. Anderson, Organist
The College Choir
Eulogy by Donald W. Harward, President, Bates College
Edmund S. Muskie, Class of 1936--a son of Bates.
Raised in Rumford, ME, Edmund Muskie longed to attend
college, but knew that the opportunity might be slim, as
his family's resources were modest. Reflective, and fond
of the comfort of solitude, he recalled that
``In the fall of 1928, I entered high school. At
that time, I was a shy, self-conscious child with no
idea of making myself prominent. In the next 4
years, I conquered the greater part of this
[shyness] and graduated valedictorian of my class.''
[In addition to college documents, James Gardner Ross,
in his 1986 Honors Thesis of the early years of Senator
Muskie, provides accounts, letters, and interviews with
the Senator regarding his family and early experiences.]
``My whole life has demonstrated to me . . . that
my convictions about proving yourself, achieving
excellence, and growing is the key to success. That
involves determination and will power, and you've
got to face problems and overcome them; . . . you
can't let yourself [become] discouraged; . . .
you've got to have resiliency.''
He excelled.
``Everything just seemed to come to him,'' said
his school friends. [T]he [high school]
administration recognized [his] unique ability and
Edmund would be asked to run the class.''
In 1932, he was, as a high school senior, paid $2 a day
to be a teaching substitute.
``In 1929 the Depression hit the world. As a
result, upon my graduation from high school in 1932,
my father was doubtful about my going to college.''
Bates' tuition was $250; housing in Parker Hall was
another $80; and board ranged upwards of $250.
For him to attend college, the family had to look for
financial assistance from Bates; he received one of 10
scholarships given to the highest academic ranked students
among New England high schools.
In 1932, there were 634 students at Bates, 46 percent
were from Maine. The total financial aid budget for the
college was $20,300.
As a first-year student, he established his courses
around the requirements of a degree in mathematics; in
addition, he took chemistry, biology, German, and English.
He received A's in every course.
Though his first 2 years primarily revolved around
mathematics and science, he took none of these courses his
junior year. The courses he enrolled in were concentrated
in history and government and he changed his major from
mathematics to history and government.
``What I majored in when I first went to Bates was
mathematics at the same time that I was debating. I
found that, although I did well in math . . . the
issues that we debated on politics were of more
interest to me than mathematics and I just didn't
want to become a math teacher.''
The one constant interest he participated in during his
4 years at Bates was debating.
Though all of his first debates were away, his parents
did have the opportunity to hear their son perform. Radio
debates were held in order to keep the public informed of
the issues. Mr. and Mrs. Muskie would often try to catch
these debates on their radio. Unfortunately for them, the
reception in Rumford was poor and, as they wrote their
son, ``Your broadcast last Saturday wasn't very good in
Rumford; the Portland stations don't come in in the
evening.''
As representatives of the College, he and classmate
Irving Isaacson (because of the great height differential
they were referred to as ``Mutt and Jeff'') went on a
debate tour in which they visited five colleges, debating
the judicial review of the Supreme Court and the negative
effects of the Social Security legislation passed the year
before.
Irving Isaacson recalled:
``Debating was one of the things which Bates
excelled in intercollegiately. Ed and I had been
involved with debating but this was the first time,
as I recollect, that we were teamed up together.
Professor Quimby had enough confidence in us to let
us out loose on our own, so to speak, and wander
around the college circuit.''
Even Edmund Muskie's Honors Thesis was presented in the
form of a debate: ``Resolved that there is a necessity for
Social Security legislation as a part of a changing
economic order which demands a change in our
constitutional machinery.'' The ability of seeing both
sides of an issue was to be one of the effective skills
which he took from Bates. A staff member discussed Senator
Muskie's legislative ability as though he were describing
the art of debate.
``I think he's at the best in terms of problems.
He devours alternatives. He rejects an a priori
argument, rejects things that are not factually
based, not founded on data, that one can't explain
or defend. Muskie is always interested in
alternatives, and usually has some of his own. He
deals with mirror images; that is, he sees the
backside, the opposite side, which means he sees the
whole idea--and the fragments into which it can fall
. . .''
He served as an officer of the Politics Club and the
Student Council; he analyzed his student colleagues
performances in Shaw's ``Candide'' and Shakespeare's
``Much Ado About Nothing''; he debated at the Cambridge
Forum, at Brooklyn College, New York University, Rutgers,
and Lafayette. He ran track; he made trusted and life-long
friendships.
He was Phi Beta Kappa; an Honors candidate and the
recipient of the designations of his fellow classmates as
``Most Respected''; ``Most Likely to Succeed''; and ``Best
Scholar.''
``It never occurred to me to [pursue law]. That
wasn't in my field of vision at all. But President
Gray called me into his office one day, I think it
was during Commencement time, and said that Cornell
Law School, because of the excellent record that
Bates graduates had made in Cornell, was making a
scholarship available to anyone of his choosing. He
asked me if I would like it . . . Well, that was
justification for my motivation . . .''
1936 was the aftermath of the Great Depression, but it
stirred in a young Bates graduate the appeal of public
service and a commitment to the general good. His college
experiences had encouraged self-reliance, resourcefulness,
confidence in his own intellectual and critical strengths,
and the confirmation of his own integrity and industry.
College had been for Edmund Muskie a surprising place,
pulling him in new directions. It had been a demanding
place, and stimulated the formulation of his own criterion
for excellence. The experience had attended to his
individual strengths and needs and encouraged him to
compete, to participate, and to succeed.
The 1936 Class gift to Bates was a panel of three
stained glass windows here in the Chapel--it is the panel
in which Plato is the central figure, and Phidias (the
sculptor) and Euclid (the mathematician) are on either
side.
You recall in Plato's Republic that the leaders (the
rulers or philosopher kings) are born--empowered as a
function of the metal of their soul. It was, Plato argued,
the magnificent myth which, if repeated, for generations,
would justify the exertion of power by a few and
compliance by many. It is ironic that Edmund Muskie chose
to mark his yearbook entry with the caption ``Kings are
not born; they are made by universal hallucination.''
Senator Muskie knew the irony of the rhetoric of
leadership for he understood the power of principled
action and straight talk. Leadership, like trust, was to
be earned; it was not a natural right of the privileged.
In 1955 Senator Muskie was extended an honorary
doctorate degree from Bates; and in 1957 he joined the
Board of Trustees of the College and served, with only a
few years of interruption, until 1988, when he retired as
Trustee Emeritus. In 1984 he received the first Benjamin
E. Mays Medal for Distinguished Accomplishment and
Service.
His papers and public policy contributions were
recognized in 1985, in the opening of the Muskie Archives,
as invaluable resources for scholarship in foreign policy,
environmental policy, and enlightened public interest. In
their reflection of a public life, the Archives give
testimony to leadership and dedicated service, to a career
of thoughtful, direct, and passionate consideration,
linked to action for the good of others.
Humane and wise, absent of puffery, directed by
principle, a child of Rumford, ME, a son of Bates, and a
treasured sibling of the Nation's citizenry. Institutions
are reflections of the qualities of the people who engage
in them. Bates has been honored by the life and service of
Edmund S. Muskie.
Edmund Sixtus Muskie 1914-1996
Public Service
Member of Maine House of Representatives, 1946-51;
minority leader, 1948-51.
Candidate for mayor of Waterville, 1947.
Director, Maine District, Office of Price Stabilization,
1951-52.
Governor of Maine, 1954-58; first Democratic Governor in
20 years.
United States Senator, 1958-80.
Chairman of Budget Committee, member of Environmental
and Public Works Committee (chairman, Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution); member of Foreign Relations,
Governmental Affairs and Banking and Currency committees
and Special Committee on Aging; assistant majority whip.
Chief sponsor and floor manager, Water Quality Act,
1963.
Key player in passage of Clean Air Act, 1963, and its
amendments in 1967 and 1970.
Member and rotating chairman, Roosevelt-Campobello
Island International Park Commission, 1964-96.
Secretary of State, 1980-81.
Member of Tower Commission appointed by President Reagan
to investigate Iran-Contra case, 1986-87.
Chair, Maine Commission on Legal Needs, 1989-90.
Democratic Party
Democratic National Committeeman, 1952-56.
Chairman, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,
1967-69.
Democratic nominee for Vice President, 1968.
Candidate for Democratic Presidential nomination, 1972.
Bates College
Enters Bates after graduating from Stephens High School,
Rumford, 1932.
At Bates, 1932-36; varsity debater; class president;
student council vice president and secretary-treasurer;
Politics Club; Ivy Day speaker; track.
Graduates from Bates, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, with
degree in history and government, 1936.
Receives honorary doctor of laws degree from Bates in
1955.
Member of Bates' Board of Trustees, 1957-66 and 1970-88.
Receives Benjamin E. Mays Medal for distinguished
accomplishment by an alumnus, June 9, 1984.
Joins former President Carter for dedication of Muskie
Archives, September 28, 1985.
Personal
Born in Rumford, the son of Stephen and Josephine
Muskie, March 28, 1914.
Graduates from Cornell Law School and admitted to
Massachusetts bar, 1939.
Enlists in U.S. Navy, 1942, serves as officer aboard
destroyer escorts in Atlantic and Pacific theaters.
Marries Jane Gray of Waterville, May 29, 1948.
Children: Stephen (1949), Ellen (1950), Melinda (1956),
Martha (1958), Edmund Jr. (1961).
Remarks, Statements and Speeches
Bates College Memorial Minute For
Edmund S. Muskie
May 25, 1996.
President Harward, we, the trustees of Bates College,
wish to express for ourselves and for this record our
respect and admiration for our colleague, Edmund Sixtus
Muskie, who died on March 26, 1996 at the age of 82.
Traditionally, the purpose of these remarks has been to
provide a testimonial for a departed colleague and to show
our respect and appreciation for his having been one of
us. Normally, we would describe his achievements and the
place he attained in our college world, or in our greater
society, through good or great deeds. However, I do not
believe that an additional recital of Ed's public
accomplishments is necessary or even fitting for our
purposes here today. Instead, I would like to provide a
somewhat different view of Ed as a person and as the
product of a peculiarly Bates environment.
On my wall at the office, I have the pictures of three
great public figures of our time: Franklin D. Roosevelt,
inscribed to my father, Peter A. Isaacson; George
Mitchell, and Ed Muskie. Each of them overcame adversities
of one form or another to become leaders and symbols of
our time.
Normally, when an alumnus becomes successful, wealthy or
even famous, the college seeks to imply to a greater or
lesser degree that it had a significant share in the
becoming. Usually, it is not that easy to demonstrate a
clear and convincing relationship between a college
environment and the graduate's subsequent achievements. In
the case of Ed Muskie, I believe we can justifiably point
to a college career which strongly influenced his fitness
for a public career.
Ed and I both came to Bates in 1932. Being what we were,
we naturally gravitated to the Bates debating team and for
4 years, he and I were debating partners. There, we came
under the influence of one of the really great teachers in
the history of Bates College: Professor Brooks Quimby, the
debating coach. Brooks had an amazing ability to challenge
his debaters teaching them to talk naturally and
convincingly to groups, both large and small; teaching
them to organize their thinking, to be articulate without
being verbose, to analyze complex materials under
pressure, and to be quick and nimble in response. All of
these are the basic equipment of successful politicians
and statesmen. Obviously, not every Bates debater would
become a respected U.S. Senator or run for the Presidency
of the United States. Myself, for example. However, I
believe that this training gave organization and direction
to the great innate strengths and abilities of Ed Muskie.
It gave him strength to seize his opportunities and
equipped him to meet the confrontational demands of a
public career. Equally important, he acquired at Bates the
assurance and self confidence that he would need in his
later life, that he was a man who could move his fellow
men. His innate abilities and personality undoubtedly
would have made him successful in many fields. When he
chose to become a public person, I believe that his career
and training at Bates helped make him the successful
leader that he was.
All of us can take pride that Bates College contributed
to a significant degree in forming the man that Ed Muskie
became. All of us owe him a major debt for personifying
once again the American credo: that neither poverty nor
religion nor ethnic background should prevent a person
from seizing those opportunities for which nature has
qualified him.
We therefore pay tribute to his memory and to his
presence among us. His life will be a lesson and a beacon
for those who strive.
Presented this day, May 25, 1996, to the Corporation of
Bates College, Lewiston, ME.
Respectfully submitted,
Irving Isaacson,
Trustee Emeritus.
a
[From Bates Magazine, Summer 1996]
Remembering Ed
(By Ruth Rowe Wilson)
While Maine and the Nation mourn the loss of a great
statesman, Ed Muskie's Bates contemporaries are mourning a
different loss, the loss of a great friend whose honesty,
fairness, and loyalty defined what we all love about
Bates.
Remembering Ed Muskie has been a journey into the past
for us, to the early 1930s at Bates, where friendships
blossomed into lifetime relationships. The era--the depths
of the Great Depression--was a time when ``a Bates man was
known by the patch on the seat of his pants,'' a
description coined by K. Gordon Jones 1935. Like many of
his classmates, Ed Muskie worked his way through college
and depended on the self sacrifice of his parents. They
lived in Rumford, where his father, a Polish immigrant,
owned a small tailor shop.
During college, Muskie had a summer hotel job in
Kennebunkport and was a dorm proctor and a head waiter in
John Bertram Hall, then the men's dining hall. When Muskie
ran out of money the last term of senior year, he went to
Dean Harry Rowe 1912 (my father), who told him to go back
to class, not to worry. As Norm Ross 1922, then the
College bursar, said, ``We had an anonymous godfather,
George Lane, who wrote a check to help worthy students. Ed
was a country boy who worked hard and was worth our
recommendation for help. We didn't go to the well too
often, but he thought a lot of Bates students and helped
when they were up against it for cash.''
By the time our 20th reunion arrived in 1956, Muskie was
Maine's Governor. Ed and Jane hosted a reception at the
Blaine House, an occasion marked by their warm and
unpretentious hospitality, Jane's lovely peony
arrangements, and Ed's sense of fun. He put everyone at
ease, took candid pictures, and at one point lined up all
the bald-pated fellows for a group photo. And at our 50th
reunion, Muskie was again the beloved center of our
attention. That fall, the college dedicated the Muskie
Archives. We were thrilled when President Carter said that
``Ed Muskie should have been President of the United
States.''
Classmates remember the good times spent with the
Muskies. Some friendships began back with the cribbage
crowd in Room 11 of Parker Hall, a half-dozen men who
later organized a tournament as an excuse to get together
over Christmas or New Year's, originally in the Boston
area. A Paul Revere bowl, dedicated to the late classmate
E. Howard Buzzell as a memorial cribbage tournament
trophy, made the rounds for 30 years with Ed Muskie a
frequent winner.
In their jobs as proctors in East Parker, Ed Muskie and
Joe Biernacki 1936 shared responsibility as mentors and in
keeping order, not always a simple task. But whatever the
job, Muskie always had a good sense of humor and could
take a joke as well as make one. At a 1978 Rotary Club
dinner, Dean Rowe poked fun at Muskie by calling him ``the
worst proctor Parker Hall ever had. Ed, you were terrible.
We had more windows broken and more trash cans thrown down
the steps during your senior year than ever before or
since.''
Across campus at J.B., Muskie and Biernacki worked as
head waiters in Men's Commons, an experience chiefly
remembered for Ed's attempts at diplomacy, his back to the
door, holding back a hungry crowd until it was time to
open the dining room. As Governor of Maine, Muskie once
gave a lecture at Skidmore College, where my husband, Val
Wilson 1938, was president. Val, a former J.B. waiter
under Muskie, introduced Muskie not as the Governor of
Maine but as the former head waiter at John Bertram Hall.
There was the time when Berne and Joe Biernacki, heading
up to Rangeley on their honeymoon, stopped at Muskie's
China Lake camp outside Augusta. Ed, intrigued by the good
fishing in Rangeley (and single at the time), hopped in
the car and joined them! A few years later, when the
Muskies were on their honeymoon, the Biernackis went
along.
Larry Butler 1936 remembers taking time off from work to
accompany the Humphrey-Muskie campaign in 1968. His wife,
Louise, spent the summer in Kennebunkport with the Muskie
children while Ed and Jane were on the road. The Butlers
attended Muskie's funeral on March 30, and they were moved
by the eulogies that emphasized his accomplishments as a
``man for the people.''
Kennebunkport native Betty Winston Scott 1936 spoke of
summer jobs when she and Muskie worked in different hotels
there. She said Ed once even washed her hair in a laundry
tub of the old Narragansett Hotel! Scott also went on the
Maine Yankee campaign plane, especially as a companion to
Jane. She recalls many occasions in recent years when the
Scotts, as guests of the Muskies, were invited to state
occasions--the Clinton inauguration, the reception at the
Democratic Club for U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright,
whom Muskie had sponsored. ``Everywhere we went,'' Scott
observed, ``we were impressed with all the people who
spoke to Ed with respect and affection--not just
government people, but the porters and guards, some of
whom said `God bless you,' as they walked by.''
Thinking back to freshman year, classmate Damon Stetson,
former labor reporter for The New York Times, recalls
talking politics in Muskie's Roger Bill room. A great
admirer of Roosevelt, Muskie spoke with fervor about what
FDR stood for--intimations, perhaps, of a political career
even then. For a time, Damon traveled on the Maine Yankee
campaign plane, covering stops in the Midwest and South
for the Times. Also along was the late Bob Crocker 1938, a
reporter for the Associated Press in Portland. They were
on the ``hop-skip'' tour: When the plane landed, a great
cheer would erupt from the crowd; the candidates would
meet the local folks for several hours, and then take off
shortly for the next stop.
Lewiston attorney Irving Isaacson 1936 reminisced about
traveling on debating trips with Muskie through New
England and beyond. Muskie towered over his partner by
nearly a foot, and they were dubbed ``Mutt and Jeff'' by
their colleagues. Debates in those days included such
topics as the desire of Hawaii to become a State and
whether FDR should be reelected.
David Whitehouse 1936, retired businessman, says, I
would like to think that Bates' debating tradition and
Brooks Quimby were major contributors to Ed's great
success, as I know they were to my career. `` While on an
assignment at a United Nations meeting in Caracas, Muskie
lost a golf game--and $5--to Whitehouse, who was living
and working in Venezuela at the time. Later, when
classmate Don Gautier ran for the Maine Legislature as a
Republican from Auburn, Muskie saw a chance to win back
his $5. Whitehouse, ``wholly convinced that the people of
Maine were sane and solid and would not vote for a
Democrat,'' bet Muskie on the result. Ed, having already
helped resurrect the dormant Democratic Party in Maine,
got his $5 back.
In the 1936 Mirror, under the picture of a thin, lanky
Ed Muskie, is the caption ``Kings are not born; they are
made by universal hallucination,'' from Shaw's Maxim for
Revolutionists.
Even back in 1936, Muskie couldn't stand pretension.
Like his Bates classmates, he learned to value
relationships based on honesty and fairness. In our
memory, Ed Muskie will live as a giant of a man who never
forgot his roots.
a
[From Bates Magazine, Summer 1996]
What Might Have Been, What Wonderfully Was
(By Jim Carignan)
In the months since Ed Muskie's death, many have spoken
knowledgeably and eloquently about Muskie's formidable
career of national public service. The thoughts shared
here are about another Muskie--the person in the sunset of
his life: reflective, satisfied that he had fought the
good fight well (and even won a few encounters), and
optimistic about the future. He was a man who never
stopped looking ahead.
Back in 1968, I remember being proud that a Bates
alumnus had conducted himself so well in a tumultuous
Presidential campaign. Muskie and Humphrey very nearly won
that race, and had they won, there would in all likelihood
have been no bombing of Cambodia, no Kent State, and
certainly no Watergate--threshold moments that turned
America in a perilous direction.
Again, in 1972, hopes soared as Muskie seemed destined
to win the Presidency, but it was not to be. A feeling
persists that the Nation lost a significant opportunity
for a brighter future when Muskie's march to the White
House got waylaid on that flatbed truck in Manchester, NH.
Muskie believed passionately that government could work
to improve the quality of life for all. In that sense, he
was a profound egalitarian--deeply committed to the
concept of equity at the heart of American democracy. To
remain true to that purpose, he knew the State needed
politicians and public servants of high intellect and
character to respond to the call to serve.
Late in life, he often sought to sow the seeds of that
calling in young people. While others took their
considerable accomplishments into a quiet retirement, Ed
Muskie continued to work tirelessly for a brighter future.
For example, each summer for the past 8 years Bates has
sponsored the Summer Scholars program. For 2 weeks, high-
school students from rural Maine and inner cities come to
the Muskie Archives to study ``America From Kennedy to
Carter,'' the years of Muskie's ascendancy on the national
scene. Their research is rooted in Muskie's voluminous
papers in Muskie Archives.
The highlight was always the final luncheon, which
Muskie himself always attended. The students could ask him
any questions they wished, and those sessions were quite
lively, going on for nearly 3 hours.
In recent years, when Muskie's health was not robust and
our invitations were consciously crafted to make it easy
and graceful to decline, he insisted on coming to meet
with the Summer Scholars. One year, when Muskie wasn't
feeling well, we didn't invite him. The phone rang one
day, and Ed, with characteristic bluntness, announced that
he had not received the annual invitation. Of course he
wanted to come to talk with the students!
Each June for the last 3 years, Muskie came to the
archives for the annual President's dinner, an evening
program that honored the Edmund S. Muskie Fellows,
approximately 120 of the best and brightest young adults
of the former Soviet Union, who were studying law,
business, and economics in the United States. Muskie
relished those visits. This last year he spoke for half an
hour, without notes, in a careful, poignant way. He
reminisced about growing up in Rumford, his years at
Bates, and his vision of a more free, equal, and
environmentally improved world. He said his vision had
been nurtured by great teachers who taught him the value
of discipline, by books that opened new worlds to him, and
by the people he always remained open to.
I once asked Muskie what he thought was his greatest
contribution. We talked about his environmental
legislation, the budget work, the Model Cities program. He
mentioned his efforts, back in the forties and fifties, to
resurrect the Democratic Party in Maine (he liked being
Governor of Maine best). But no single aspect of his
career jumped out as the most significant.
As we drove along the Maine Turnpike, the conversation
turned to the way he conducted himself in political life.
He said he always tried to define the problem or issue
first, then he would employ all his abilities to come up
with the best resolution. Then he would fight hard for his
position, no matter what the political consequence. He
turned to me and said that he always found Maine people
willing to give him a fair hearing when he behaved that
way, even when his position contradicted what his Maine
constituents believed.
Of course, what Muskie described was his greatness: the
integrity that was his signature, the incisive mind that
so many unprepared opponents came to respect, the
persuasiveness (which he learned at Bates), the patience--
always in uneasy tension with his passion and
persistence--and his democratic respect for his fellow
citizens. Ed Muskie always gave his best.
We must not forget his wonderful sense of humor. I
recall him questioning the dean of the faculty at a
trustee meeting about the faculty's efforts to teach sound
writing. He was concerned whether students had
opportunities to write and rewrite. He recalled how
important that was in his own training at Bates. He paused
and, with a twinkle in his eye, went on to say, ``But I
realize the faculty can only do so much.'' He made his
point by telling a story about his mentor and debate
coach, Brooks Quimby--and about himself.
Quimby always asked his debaters to give him written
copies of their opening speeches. He would then routinely
cut them to pieces with his red pencil and demand they be
rewritten, no matter how much effort went into their
preparation. One time, as Muskie told it, he received his
draft back with Quimby's red-penciled criticisms. Muskie
did what every professor fears: He merely retyped the
original submission without any corrections. The next day
Quimby returned the second submission to Muskie with the
comment that it was much improved over the first draft.
Muskie relished the story, yet he told it in deep
respect for a teacher who taught him the virtue of
rigorous intellectual and analytical attention to
argument.
Muskie showed that making connections with people, an
ability born out of his respect for the human condition,
is necessary for effective public policy making. He showed
us that humility is the prerequisite for greatness. He
always tried to cultivate the virtuous side of his fellow
human beings. By doing that, he proved that one person can
make the world a better place.
Why Ed Muskie Mattered
The Environmental Forum
[The Policy Journal of the Environmental Law Institute,
May/June 1996]
(By Leon G. Billings)
As the father of the modern environmental movement,
Edmund S. Muskie leaves an indelible legacy as one of the
pivotal figures of post-war America. Before Ed Muskie,
there was no national environmental policy; there was no
national environmental movement; there was no national
environmental consciousness. Before Ed Muskie, we
protected places and things. Stewardship was seen only in
conservationist terms. Modern environmentalism, which
protects human health and welfare, was mostly an academic
subject. Through a unique blend of leadership, courage,
and foresight, Ed Muskie made it national policy to
protect human health by protecting the air, the water, the
land. And that policy, that philosophy, has spread across
the geopolitical surface of the planet.
Under his direction, the nation's environmental laws
became a fabric. There was legal continuity, definition,
and purpose. There was a policy basis which the public
could grasp--health in clean air, biological integrity and
drinkable and fishable and swimmable in clean water. There
were tools to achieve objectives and timeframes for
action. There were performance mandates and defined roles
for program administrators, the courts, and the public. No
earlier federal laws contained all of these. Most
contained none.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was his outstanding
achievement. For the first time, it set national statutory
environmental goals. It required that air quality which
would protect the health of people--not just healthy
people, but people sensitive to air pollution-related
illness--would need to be achieved within a 5-to-7-year
period. Then it gave the responsibility to states and
localities to adopt air pollution control measures which
would achieve that standard in that timeframe, to give
states and localities the maximum flexibility to tailor
air pollution cleanup plans to local economic and
environmental needs.
To mold that law he combined Senator Howard Baker's
commitment to technology-forcing with Senator Tom
Eagleton's demand for deadlines and his own insistence
that ``health'' standards be met. And then he challenged
his colleagues in committee, on the floor, and in
conference to defend anything less than forcing technology
to achieve healthy air by a date certain. None did.
The bill established a requirement that emissions from
new cars be reduced by 90 percent within 5 years. As
important, it required that every car meet those
reductions and that the auto companies warrant emission
performance to new car buyers. And the bill included a
wide variety of public participation, scientific
information enforcement and regulatory tools. No
environmental law enacted before was as ambitious. None
was as powerful. And none became as fundamental to our
society despite uneven implementation and repeated attacks
over the past 25 years.
The superficial memories of Ed Muskie are large. He was
physically imposing. His flashes of temper were legendary,
although overstated. He had a powerful voice, strong
opinions, and sizable political ambition. Yet the things
that made him so effective were smaller, more subtle--and
he was the most effective legislator of his generation. He
had not only brilliance, but thoroughness; not only temper
but patience; not only a clear and principled vision, but
also the ability to find consensus that kept faith with
his vision.
There are lessons not only in what he accomplished, but
in the way he did it. Ed Muskie had served as a state
legislator and Governor before coming to the U.S. Senate
in 1959. He had a lifelong interest in the processes of
government. He was a hunter and fisherman and thus had a
lifelong interest in conservation. But it was the fact
that Maine's rivers were too polluted to allow new
businesses to be established that led him to environmental
protection.
As a second-generation Polish-American who grew up with
the understanding that his father's native land was a
victim of totalitarianism, he was a committed
internationalist. As the product of a working class
background, he understood what economic opportunity--or
the lack of it--meant to the average citizen. As a product
of Rumford, Maine, a paper mill town, he also knew first
hand the price the Earth had paid for economic progress.
As a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Republican state,
Muskie appreciated the value of process in protecting
individual rights, and developed a talent for persuasion,
consensus building and compromise. He possessed a
combination of intellect, curiosity, and thoroughness that
helped make him one of those rare Senators who could
change their colleagues' minds. He had a clearly and
completely articulated view of government, and, most
importantly, he knew the difference between right and
wrong--in policy terms, in moral terms, and in terms of
human interaction. This gave him an unshakable faith that
activism could improve the human condition. And it made
him a risk taker.
Much of what was said on the death of Edmund S. Muskie
dealt with his political career. That is appropriate
because it is not only the most public part of his life,
but also the most controversial. It is not, however, that
which will secure his place in history. Ed Muskie came to
the Senate at a time when the Congress was controlled by
southern Democrats; when the seniority system was the
basis for power; when success in program and placement
equated to getting along with those power brokers; and
when liberals were new and numerous but not very
effective. Because he challenged the southern-dominated
seniority system on his first vote, he was exiled to three
secondary committees. By the time he became chairman of
the Government Operation's Intergovernmental Relations
Subcommittee, the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Housing Subcommittee, and the Public Works environment
subcommittee, he turned each into not only a major power
base but also a laboratory for some of the most creative
legislation passed in the 20th century.
As chairman of the Intergovernmental Relations
Subcommittee, Muskie helped redefine the relationship
between Federal and State Governments. During President
Nixon's ``Imperial Presidency'' it was Muskie who
developed the concept of the ``New Federalism.'' His idea
of creative federalism recognized that the level of
government most able to perform a task ought to be the
level charged with the responsibility for implementing the
task.
Washington Post columnist David Broder summarized
Muskie's role this way: ``As chairman of the Senate's
Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee--a backwater
assignment if ever there was one--he made it the forum in
the 1960s for that favorite issue of the 1990s, downsizing
the Federal Government and shifting power and
responsibility to the states.
``That was hardly the mind-set of most Democrats in the
era of the Great Society, but Muskie and a handful of
others insisted that as the scope of governmental
responsibilities widened, the constitutional relationship
between the states and Washington needed protecting.
Muskie was not averse to activist government, he wrote
much of the new environmental protection legislation
enacted in the next decade. But he was wise enough to see
that many of the new domestic initiatives needed to be
tailored to the varying conditions of the 50 States. As
later events proved, he was right.''
Ed Muskie was committed to providing opportunities for
American workers. He wrote the legislation--carried by
other Senators--that created the nation's economic
development polices in the 1960s, including the Area
Redevelopment Act and the Public Works and Economic
Development Act. As chair of the housing subcommittee, he
rewrote and floor managed the 1966 Model Cities
legislation, which was to define the first major
undertaking of the new Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Muskie's lasting legacy is the great body of
environmental law that guides our national policy and
serves as a world model. In it, one can find the proof of
all his skills and his defining themes. His appreciation
for process led him to propose a shared agencies for
environmental cleanup and enforcement. It led him to
support citizen suit provisions to provide a vehicle for
the victims to help themselves when government would not
help them. His commitment to economic opportunity led him
toward a rationale for cleanups as an economic necessity,
and a view of air, water, and land as limited economic as
well as social resources. His commitment to improving the
lot of the average American helped him embrace and
capitalize upon the concept of public health as the
fundamental basis for environmental law--and in the
process, helped him define modern environmentalism apart
from conservationism. It also provided the essential
justification for asserting a strong federal role in
cleaning up pollution.
On the Public Works Committee, where he chaired the
environment subcommittee, he worked with Senator Baker to
break the Highway Trust Fund, making gas tax revenue
available for public transit. To the consternation of
anti-dam preservationists, he developed a sound working
relationship with the redoubtable Senator Jennings
Randolph of West Virginia, chairman of the committee and
the greatest public works advocate of the Post War period.
His relationship with Senator Randolph, his legislative
skill, his appreciation for bipartisan and compromise, his
ability to outwait the opposition, his debating skills,
his willingness to compromise on everything except
principle, all can be seen in the history of these
landmark laws.
He guarded his role as environmental leader vigorously,
and left his mark on every significant environmental
action. He changed Senator Jackson's National
Environmental Policy Act from a proposal which would allow
government agencies to justify their adverse environmental
impacts to a law which gave the public access to
environmental impacts and a means to be sure that
alternatives were fairly evaluated. He forced a commitment
from the Nixon Administration that the Environmental
Protection Agency would be an advocate, not an
adjudicator, of environmental protection.
In effect, the modern environmental movement started
when, at his request, the environment subcommittee--more
conventionally known as the Air And Water Pollution
Subcommittee--was created in 1963, and he was made its
chairman. Prior to that time, there had been virtually no
federal laws concerning pollution. There was no national
forum to even discuss environmental problems. His first
job was to educate himself and build a record against
which any initiatives he might propose could be justified.
By the time his colleagues began to ask questions, Ed
Muskie already knew most of the answers.
At first, he took ever so modest initiatives to the
Senate, trying to chip away at the precedents and
prejudices which limited the Federal Government's ability
to grasp the pollution problem and deal with it
effectively. Over the 7-year period between 1963 and
enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Senate passed
numerous environmental laws, a few of which eventually
went to Presidents Johnson and Nixon for signature. Each
was modest. Each accomplished more than a prior
initiative, especially if that initiative had failed to
pass. And each reflected a broadening intellectual
commitment shaped, urged, and negotiated by the intellect
of Senator Muskie.
In the environment subcommittee he co-opted his
opponents, always seeking to bring the best and the
brightest in first, assuming that their colleagues would
follow. Frequently, he would try to accommodate the
concerns of his most antagonistic colleague, knowing that
building that bridge could bring many votes across a
philosophical gulf. He could engage Senator Jim McClure to
fashion federal policy to keep areas with clean air clean
(the so-called ``prevention of significant deterioration''
policy) and add hazardous pollutants to the provisions of
clean water law which established strict, joint, and
several liability.
He could convince Senator Jim Buckley to cosponsor the
1972 Clean Water Act. Buckley came to understand the
relationship between his conservative political philosophy
and the concept of conservation under Muskie's tutelage.
As a result, he became an articulate supporter of the
landmark 1972 Clean Water Act. As Buckley said: ``I know
of no situation in private life where a newcomer would
have been accorded greater consideration, or where
differences of opinion would have been given a fairer
hearing than that which was characteristic of both the
Committee on Public Works and its Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution. I feel particularly fortunate to be a
member of both and to have been able to work with the two
chairmen and the committee staff, who have made so great
an effort to accommodate differences of approach to common
objectives.''
Ed Muskie staked out a national policy which he himself
defined only after the most excruciating of intellectual
exercises. He frequently pointed out that the Clean Water
Act required 44 Senate committee meetings and as many
joint meetings in conferences with the House committee
before action was concluded. But he never rushed any of
his colleagues, though he tended to be more impatient with
those on his left than those on his right.
His influence, of course, extended beyond those three
subcommittees into other major areas of policy. In 1975, a
Supreme Court decision on impoundment of water pollution
funds authorized in the 1972 Clean Water Act created a
constitutional crisis. In New York v. Ruckelshaus, the
Supreme Court held that the President could not impound--
refuse to spend--funds appropriated by the Congress.
Impoundment had been a convenient discipline on federal
spending. Congress could look good back home by
appropriating funds; the President could apply the
frugality selectively. It was an informal line item veto.
Its collapse forced Congress to reexamine its budget
process. Ed Muskie seized this opportunity for reform and
became the first chairman of the new Senate Budget
Committee and the father of the modern congressional
budget process.
Muskie's interest in foreign affairs led him to seek a
seat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and he served on
that committee twice. Among his accomplishments was the
War Powers Act, once again a far-reaching reform of
government process. It was this international expertise,
as well as his broad respect gained through two runs on a
national ticket, that made him the obvious choice to
replace Cyrus Vance as Secretary of State in 1980, where
he was able to bring the social welfare principles of
modern environmentalism to an international arena.
He was the only Democratic Senator who could sit longer,
talk longer, and debate longer than his more conservative
colleagues. During the 1975-77 reauthorization or
``midcourse correction points'' for both basic laws,
Muskie would schedule 8 a.m. meetings. Often he was the
only Senator to show up. Other times, it was he and one or
two others and they would exhaust the minutia of each
issue.
Muskie always tried to identify a position ``to the
left'' of his own position. Thus, when he wanted to clean
up motor vehicles in 1970, he pointed to the legislation
sponsored by Senator Gaylord Nelson to ban the internal
combustion engine as the alternative to federal mandatory
standards and deadlines. The provision allowing citizens
to sue to enforce environmental laws was juxtaposed with
Senator Philip Hart's alternative of class actions to
enforce environmental laws based on case-by-case standards
established by the courts. And it was Senator Gary Hart's
insistence on preserving a politically untenable auto
emission standard of nitrogen dioxide which allowed Muskie
to hold firm in 1977 against John Dingell and the all-out
assault on the 1970 standards. (I would be less than
complete not to recall that he was also able to tell
Dingell that Maine didn't have any auto plants which might
close. Dingell, faced with a massive shutdown of auto
production, conceded defeat only to become the Clean Air
Act's enemy in Congress for the next decade.)
Imaginative and inventive, he used the Nixon
administration's attempt to regulate water pollution based
on the obscure Refuse Act of 1899 (which prohibited any
discharge of any pollutant whatever into the nation's
waters), to establish a national goal of ``zero
discharge'' into waterbodies and a federal clean water
program based on best available technology.
Whatever the committee, preparation was his first
demand. Senator Muskie never went to committee or to the
Senate floor unless he knew the answer to more questions
than anyone else would think to ask. He would beat his
colleagues into submission with details. Few would even
try to compete. And those that did would frequently ask to
``take the matter to the cloakroom'' so they could try to
resolve the issue offstage rather than in open debate with
the Senator.
It was often said of Hubert Humphrey that he had more
solutions than there were problems. Ed Muskie wanted more
answers than there were questions. He always had room for
one more idea, one more concept, one more way to get
things done. But if someone had an idea, a concept, or an
option, that person better have the detailed knowledge of
how it would work in practical application. Ed Muskie
never turned over the technical detail to staff. And in
Washington, which all too frequently wanted to assume that
the policy was some staff conspiracy, detractors of Ed
Muskie's environmental laws were frustrated by their
inability to make that claim stick.
Ed Muskie's policy accomplishments will endure, embedded
in the average American's expectations as well as in
Federal, State, and international policy. The environment
is a settled issue for the average American, and
increasingly so for the average business leader.
During the 1995 round of attacks on environmental
policy, most Americans did not take the anti-environment
rhetoric seriously at first. When they became convinced
that the new Congress was seeking to reduce environmental
protection, the people found their voice and the GOP House
is now scrambling to fashion a cloak of green.
There are lessons for the new leadership in this. There
are also lessons in the way Ed Muskie did his job--with a
strong base of knowledge, with thoroughness, with
tolerance for opposing views, with the understanding that
consensus was essential and comity required, and with an
appreciation for process, history, and human welfare. It
seems we need his vision more every day.
Testimony of the Honorable
Edmund S. Muskie
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
On the Twentieth Anniversary of Passage of The Clean Water
Act
September 22, 1992.
Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be here today. I have
not often sat on this side of the table and I do not
recall ever having sat here as a witness before this
committee. Thus, your courtesy in holding this oversight
hearing to review the progress under the 1972 Clean Water
Act and allowing me to appear is greatly appreciated. I
have a great many fond memories of this room.
Only five Members of Congress who still serve in the
Senate or in the other body were on the Public Works
Committees in 1972: Senators Bentsen and Dole and
Congressmen Roe, Hammerschmidt and Rangel. Some have
passed away, like the driving force behind Clean Water
legislation in the House of Representatives, beginning
before I even came to the Senate, the Honorable John
Blatnik of Minnesota. Others, like my fellow co-
chairpeople of the Clean Water Celebration, Senator Howard
Baker and Congressman Bill Harsha, would be here had their
schedules allowed.
Mr. Chairman, there is history about the Clean Water Act
that I would like to share with you and on which I had to
refresh my memory, perhaps because I wanted to suppress
it. This history provides a perspective on how arduous a
task it was to create a statute which contained as
powerful and lasting program as the Clean Water Act did.
In the period that led to enactment of the Clean Water
Act, this committee held 33 days of hearings, listened to
171 witnesses, received 470 statements, compiled 6,400
pages of testimony, and conducted 45 subcommittee and full
committee markup sessions. Subsequently, the House and
Senate conferees met 39 times.
The House and Senate disagreed fundamentally on the
thrust of the Act. The Senate viewed the Clean Water Act
as an environmental statute; the House viewed it as a
public works bill. The final product was a comprehensive
environmental public works bill. But such is the nature of
compromise.
Because there was little organized data or scientific
information, we acted in the Senate based on our extensive
8-year hearing record. These were some of our findings:
Many of the Nation's navigable waters were severely
polluted, and major waterways near the industrial and
urban areas were unfit for most purposes;
Rivers were the primary sources of pollution of coastal
waters and the oceans, and many lakes and confined
waterways were aging rapidly under the impact of increased
pollution;
Rivers, lakes and streams were being used to dispose of
man's wastes rather than to support man's life and health;
and
The use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste
treatment system was unacceptable.
Based on these findings, the 1972 Act set three broad
goals: the biological integrity of receiving waters; the
maximum use of available technology; and the ultimate goal
of zero discharge.
I think I can best respond to your letter of invitation
by looking, 20 years later, at those goals in terms of our
successes and our failures.
The good news is:
The total population served by central sewers and
secondary treatment or better has increased by 76 percent,
from 85 million in 1972 to 150 million in 1988.
Federal construction grants plus State and local shares
built some 4,000 sewer systems and 2,000 treatment plants
between 1972 and 1988.
By 1988, less than 1 percent of the urban population
routinely generated and discharged untreated wastewater.
As of June 1990, 87 percent of major industrial
dischargers reported substantial compliance with permits,
while 85 percent of major municipal dischargers reported
compliance.
Marked progress has been made toward the fishable/
swimmable goals: 80.3 percent of assessed river miles meet
the Clean Water Act fishable goal and 74.6 percent meet
the swimmable goal; for lakes the figures are 70.2 percent
and 82.5 percent; this is in spite of phenomenal economic
and population growth.
Many streams have seen national fisheries and habitat
restored. Lake Erie, the Nation's shame in 1972, has
largely been restored. The Potomac, the pollution of which
triggered Lyndon Johnson's Clean Rivers program in 1966,
has witnessed a remarkable recovery. Atlantic salmon are
in the Bangor pool in my home State of Maine. And I'm sure
there are literally thousands of other measures of
progress and improvement.
The bad news is, while we have come a long way towards
the goals of the 1972 Act, there is a great deal left to
be done.
Today there is a much better understanding of the
enormity of our capacity to irreversibly contaminate our
environment.
Today we know that the subtle pollutants are often more
dangerous than the BOD and suspended solids we targeted in
1972.
Another lesson today is that chronic adverse biological
impact may be a greater problem than the acute results of
discharge of raw sewage or large toxic spills.
Water shortages and inadequate supplies of clean water
have taught us that water is too precious to pollute.
And we understand that the Nation's estuaries, like the
Chesapeake Bay, must be a priority for national, not just
State or regional, attention.
We knew in 1972, but I think we understand even better
today, that our ecologically vital wetlands are too
precious to fill.
In 1972 we knew there was a storm water problem, but we
did not address it.
We knew there was a combined sewer overflow problem, but
we addressed it inadequately.
Mr. Chairman, this ought to be our agenda for the next 2
decades of Clean Water.
I would like to close with this thought: When we
embarked on the environmental decade, we didn't have a lot
of scientific data. In many respects, we acted on the
basis of what we didn't know but suspected, rather than on
defined scientific and technical knowledge. I believe if
we had not taken that course the degradation--the
destruction--of our Nation's water resources and our
environment generally would, by now, have been beyond
repair. While we have not seen all the progress we need,
we can be certain that we have forestalled an
environmental Armageddon.
The sewage that does not flow from our city sewers and
industrial facilities and the wetlands not lost are the
measure of our progress. The more complex, subtle and
politically challenging problems I have mentioned are the
measure of the job ahead.
I am pleased with the progress that has been made, but
I'm not satisfied. I hope this committee continues to
share the sense of urgency which we felt 20 years ago.
That motivation, combined with the experience of the past
2 decades, in substantive and political terms, will, I
hope, help you fashion an even better law for the future.
NEPA TO CERCLA
[From the Environmental Forum (Journal), January/February
1990]
A little more than 20 years ago, on the very last day of
1970, President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act into law.
Senator Edmund Muskie, the primary author of the law, was
not invited to the ceremony. At the time, Muskie was a
front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination
and often antagonized the Nixon White House, particularly
by attacking the Administration for denying stronger
support to environmental concerns.
In this second in a special series of Forum articles on
the laws of the environmental decade, Muskie reflects on
the drafting and enactment of the original clean air law.
``NEPA to CERCLA'' celebrates the 20th anniversary of
Earth Day by offering reminiscences from the past and
advice for the future from the primary architects of our
major environmental laws.
Serving as the first chairman of the Senate's Public
Works Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution from 1963 to
1980, Edmund Muskie compiled a remarkable record, forging
innovative legislative mandates that have served as the
basis for our system of pollution control. Under his
leadership, many of the nation's major environmental laws
were conceived and enacted--including the Clean Air Act,
the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As Secretary
of State in the Carter Administration, Muskie continued to
be a key spokesman for international environmental
concerns. He is presently a partner in the D.C. office of
Chadbourne & Parke, a New York-based international law
firm.
The Environmental Forum is pleased to present former
Senator Muskie's remarks on the 20th anniversary of the
Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act: A Commitment to Public Health
(By Edmund S. Muskie)
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Clean Air
Act of 1970--the most comprehensive air pollution control
bill in American history. It also marks the 20th
anniversary of Earth Day.
In 1970, the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution were ready to launch a tough new
approach to clean up the nation's air. Earth Day occurred
during the hearings. Members were overwhelmed by mail from
across the nation. We used every ounce of political
leverage the Earth Day constituency created to prod a
reluctant President and an equally reluctant House of
Representatives to accept landmark clean air legislation.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 defined the air pollution
control program we have today. It has been amended since
then, but the basic principles still apply. My purpose
here is to restate the basic objectives of the original
Clean Air Act with the hope that they will be kept in mind
in the current clean air debate.
the early years: shaping convictions
The 1970 Act had its modest beginnings in the 1960s,
following the establishment in 1963 of the Senate
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. In the 1960s, air
pollution was widely perceived as a Los Angeles smog
problem. But as research programs and public hearings were
convened across the country, we soon learned that it was a
rapidly escalating national health problem. Our
legislative initiatives evolved slowly but picked up
momentum as the Subcommittee developed confidence in its
understanding of what was required.
In the 1963 Act, we expanded programs for research and
technical assistance and provided grants to states to
develop and improve their air pollution control programs.
We directed the development of ``air quality criteria'' to
identify pollutant levels that cause adverse health
effects. States could then use these criteria to regulate
sources of air pollution. We authorized the Secretary of
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to
convene conferences of state and local authorities to deal
with interstate air pollution problems. In 1965, we
directed the Secretary to develop emissions standards for
new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
By 1967 there was broad agreement that current local and
state efforts were inadequate. The nation's air quality,
and the accompanying threat to public health, continued to
worsen. Federal action was required. The Air Quality Act
of 1967, which passed the Senate 88 to 0, provided the
first comprehensive federal air pollution control by
establishing ambient air quality standards based on
federal ``air quality criteria.''
The debate continued over how to implement these
criteria. State and local actions weren't enough, but
federal regulation seemed insensitive to local conditions.
A regional approach was chosen as a compromise. Under the
1967 Act, HEW was directed to designate broad
``atmospheric regions'' of the country, where
meteorological, topographical, and other conditions were
similar. In order to simplify regulations, these regions
were also to conform to local political/jurisdictional
boundaries with similar industrial conditions. States were
required to adopt state implementation plans showing how
they would achieve the air quality standards. HEW was
directed to report within 3 years on progress towards
meeting the new national emissions standards.
Another major feature of the 1967 Act was the federal
preemption of the authority of the states--with the sole
exception of California--to establish automobile emission
standards. The logic here was simple. Trucks and
automobiles are mobile sources, frequently crossing state
boundaries, and therefore require federal regulation.
California fought hard to maintain sovereignty so that its
tougher emissions standards would not be preempted. Since
the size of the California auto market would prevent this
from being too much of a hardship for manufacturers, it
was agreed that the state could have such an exemption,
and it stands today.
the 1970 clean air act
The experiences and lessons of the 1960s prepared the
members of the Subcommittee for the challenge of the 1970
Act. It was clear that air pollution continued to threaten
public health. Continuing squabbles over establishing the
atmospheric regions and enforcing the law make it clear
that--while implementation measures must remain sensitive
to local conditions--federal standards and action were
needed. By 1970 the Subcommittee members were ready to
launch a tough new approach in the requirements and the
procedures of the Clean Air Act.
A series of outside events helped build political
momentum for a tough new law. Earth Day occurred during
the hearings. That summer, Washington suffered the worst
and longest air pollution episode in its history. Caught
up in the spirit of the day, a coalition of labor and
other environmental groups went so far as to call for
prohibition of the internal combustion engine.
Three fundamental principles shaped the 1970 law. I was
convinced that strict federal air pollution regulation
would require a legally defensible premise. Protection of
public health seemed the strongest and most appropriate
such premise. Senator Howard Baker believed that the
American technological genius should be brought to bear on
the air pollution problem, and that industry should be
required to apply the best technology available. Senator
Thomas Eagleton asserted that the American people deserved
to know when they could expect their health to be
protected, and that deadlines were the only means of
providing minimal assurance.
Other a period of several markup sessions, those three
concepts evolved into a proposed Clean Air Act that set
deadlines, required the use of best available technology,
and established health-related air quality levels. The
success or failure of the program would be determined by
measurement against these criteria.
When the bill was made public, the business community
was outraged. The auto industry complained about the
unanticipated requirement that they achieve 90 percent
reductions in emissions by 1975. Most of the business
community joined in a demand for hearings.
Public Works Chairman Jennings Randolph directed the
committee staff to distribute the subcommittee's print for
comment and to meet with any groups desiring an
opportunity to discuss specific provisions prior to full
committee markup. The result of that process was a modest
delay in full committee consideration of the bill, and the
inclusion of a provision authorizing a 1-year extension of
the strict auto emissions deadline upon a finding that the
standards could not be met.
The bill was passed unanimously after just 2 days on the
floor. After the vote, Senator Eugene McCarthy commented
to me, ``Ed, you finally found an issue better than
motherhood--and some people are even against motherhood.''
An extended conference with the House followed,
interrupted by the mid-term congressional elections. The
House was adamant on not accepting the Senate auto
deadlines. But with an election year approaching, the
congressional members wanted to pass a Clean Air Act. So
the Senate stood its ground, and the conference agreement
passed by a voice vote in both Houses. President Nixon
finally signed the bill on December 31, 1970.
defining the clean air agenda
As mentioned above, the 1970 Act set the three-pronged
formula for air pollution regulation that is still
essentially in place today. A quick review of several
sections of the original Act illustrates how the concerns
with protecting public health, forcing the use of the best
available technology, and setting deadlines were written
into law.
Under section 109, EPA is directed to publish National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for specific pollutants. The
decisions on which pollutants to regulate and at what
level they were to be regulated are based on health and
welfare criteria. The pollutants selected included carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, lead, and
particulate matter.
The division between primary and secondary standards
also reflects the emphasis on health-related issues. EPA
was directed to set both primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards; the primary standards are aimed at
protecting human health with an ``adequate margin of
safety,'' and the secondary standards are expected to
protect visibility, damage to buildings, materials,
plants, and other aspects of public welfare.
Similar health concerns drove the regulation of toxic
air pollutants. Section 112 directs EPA to establish
limits for the emission of hazardous pollutants, or those
air pollutants ``which may cause or contribute to an
increase in mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness.''
Some standards were tied to the level of control
technology available. While existing sources were
controlled under State Implementation Plans (SIP), Sec.
111 directed EPA to establish nationally applicable
limitations on emissions coming from large new stationary
sources, such as factories, smelters, and power plants.
The strictness of the standards must represent the
application of the best control technology that has been
demonstrated to be available.
Development of better technologies was to be ``forced''
by Sec. 202, which required a 90 percent reduction of
automobile emissions by 1975-76. Although there was no
assurance that appropriate control devices could be
designed and installed on cars within 5 years, strict
standards and deadlines were expected to force the
development of an appropriate control technology.
For many of the clean air emissions standards, explicit
deadlines were written into the law. In order to ensure
attainment of these federal standards by the deadlines
specified, Sec. 110 required states to develop SIPs that
limit emissions. EPA was then required to approve or
disapprove the plans within the statutory deadline. If the
state plan is inadequate, the Administrator must
promulgate another plan that will bring the state into
compliance.
a citizen's right to sue
The 1970 Clean Air Act is significant, not just because
it established statutory regulation of the auto industry,
or because it established deadlines for achieving air
quality levels protective of public health. The Clean Air
Act was the first federal environmental statute to include
provisions for citizens enforcement. This so-called
citizens suit provision allows individuals to sue
violators of the Clean Air Act instead by relying on
government action. Furthermore, the Act removed many of
the former impediments to bringing suits in federal
courts--such as the need for the plaintiff to reside in a
different state than the defendant.
In order to make that provision effective, little
discretionary authority was provided to EPA. Throughout
the Act, the word ``shall'' was used to mandate the
functions required to be performed by the Agency.
Regulations, implementation, and enforcement all became
specific, non-discretionary responsibilities, and
enforceable civil and criminal penalties were included.
the 1977 amendments
In the 7 years that followed, a great deal of work was
done in the clean air laboratory of the real world.
Governments imposed regulations and industries invested in
pollution control. Great gains were achieved in
controlling automobile emissions, and perhaps most
important, new control technologies were developed. Some
parts of the country even saw improvements in their air
quality. At the very least, the deterioration of air
quality in many of our growing urban areas was slowed.
In those same 7 years, the special interest mobilized
their forces. Industry and business groups--ranging from
national oil and coal interests to service stations owners
and local land developers--prepared a myriad of studies
proving the inappropriateness of the application of the
Clean Air Act. Law firms gathered environmental experts.
Trade associations hire people specifically to cover the
environmental legislation and committees. Environmental
over-regulation became a buzzword of business and
conservative interests.
The target legislative year was 1977, when the Clean Air
Act authorization needed to be extended. The entire focus
was on weakening and limiting the application of policies
previously adopted. The auto industry waged an all-out
battle against the statutory standards. A session-ending
filibuster in the Senate pushed consideration of the
amendments into 1977, and then the auto industry gained
yet another delay of 4 years to comply with the statutory
auto emission standards. Fortunately, most of the special
interests' political capital was exhausted in the fight
for the auto industry amendment, and we were able to avoid
a number of other special industry efforts.
Since many of the deadlines had passed without
achievement of the emissions standards, the 1977 law
included a ``non-attainment'' section. For example, the
amendments provided guidelines for construction of new
facilities in areas where ambient air quality standards
had not yet been attained. Five-year extensions of
deadlines for compliance were provided for all areas that
had not yet met the standards.
Tucked into the non-attainment section were a number of
special interest provisions that removed important
regulatory tools from the clean air toolbox. Land
developers were exempted from any air quality related
transportation controls. Similar exemptions were extended
to service stations, small refineries, and the after-
market parts industry. Such provisions may have been
politically essential at the time, but they removed
significant options available for achievement of health-
based air quality standards.
Despite these setbacks, the 1977 amendments also
incorporated several major new features. One of the most
important was a ``non-degradation'' or ``clean growth''
policy to prevent the significant deterioration of air
quality in regions where the air is already cleaner than
the ambient air quality standards.
major gains and unfinished business
The Senate Subcommittee did not regard the 1970 Act as
the ultimate solution to the problems generated by air
pollution. Our knowledge as to its health effects was
incomplete. It was impossible to identify a threshold
below which health effects could be regarded as
inconsequential. But we were convinced that progress
toward a maximum reduction of adverse health effects must
be the critical test of the Act's effectiveness. We
realized that achievement of that result would require the
development of technology not yet available. We
established deadlines as a technology-forcing mechanism,
with progress to be monitored by Congress itself.
As Senator John Sherman Cooper pointed out at the time
of final action on the 1970 Clean Air Act, this was the
most far-reaching piece of social legislation in American
history; it would set in motion a course of events that
history could not reverse. He was right. It began a
process that yielded a change in the American people's
fundamental relationship with their environment. It began
an ethnic that now pervades the academic, intellectual,
and business structure of our country. And it put in place
an infrastructure of air quality planning and management
throughout the country.
Not everything we charted in the 1970 Act has been
accomplished, however. Many of our goals have been
delayed. Deadlines have been missed. The air is still
dirty. But much has been accomplished and in a few cases
we achieved more than expected. These accomplishments are
particularly significant when viewed in the light of the
continuing growth of the American population and the
expansion of the economy over the last two decades.
A major achievement of the Clean Air Act has been the
near elimination of lead from the atmosphere. EPA
estimates that emissions of this toxic metal, emitted
primarily from smelters and motor vehicles, have been
reduced by 85 percent since 1970. And continued progress
can be expected as older motor vehicles and agricultural
equipment operating on leaded gas become obsolete.
In addition, most urban centers are now in compliance
with the federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Emissions have been reduced by almost 20 percent since
1977, notwithstanding an increase in coal consumption.
This achievement will be enhanced if Congress adopts
Senators George Mitchell's (D-ME) and Max Baucus' (D-MT)
current Clean Air Act proposals requiring the reduction of
emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) which
produce acid rain.
Because of repeated delays by Detroit to require new
cars to meet statutory emissions requirements, and because
of a constantly increasing number of cars on our roads
each year, mixed results have been achieved in the
reduction of pollutants from motor vehicles. But even
though the original deadlines of the Clean Air Act were
unfortunately permitted to slip, the ``technology-
forcing'' provisions of the Act must still be regarded as
substantially responsible for much of the success of
mobile source regulation.
The number of vehicle miles travelled by automobiles has
increased dramatically. From 1978 to 1987, for example,
the number of vehicle miles travelled in the United States
increased 24 percent. Despite this increase, emissions of
particulate matter dropped by 22 percent, hydrocarbons by
17 percent, while NOx emissions remained relatively
stable. In fact, today's new automobiles produce only 4
percent as much pollution as did their 1970 predecessors.
Regulating emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) has been a
particularly difficult feat. Even though CO emissions
dropped 25 percent from 1978 to 1987, CO pollution
persists today as one of the most intractable air
pollution control problems facing society. Specifically,
approximately 50 American cities are not in attainment
with the CO standard, and 6 of these have a CO problem
that EPA classifies as a ``serious'' health hazard. In
addition, about 100 million Americans live in some 80
urban areas that exceed the health standard for ozone.
The continued growth in population, travel, and
industrial activity will only exacerbate these problems.
One shudders to contemplate the magnitude of the problem
with which we would be confronted had we neglected to
address these conventional pollutants 20 years ago.
Our persistent air quality problems are also
precipitated, at least in part, by the failure of State
and Federal Governments to implement the goals of the Act
as intended. Current information clearly indicates that
further controls on stationary and mobile sources are
required in order to achieve enhanced compliance with
standards.
One serious failure, which I greet with great
consternation, is the dilatory pace at which the Federal
Government has proceeded to regulate, or rather, failed to
regulate, hazardous air pollutants. While Sec. 112 of the
Clean Air Act clearly provides for the regulation of toxic
air pollutants, only seven standards have been
established. Many of the pollutants not yet regulated are
known carcinogens. In fact, EPA estimates that
approximately 1,500 to 3,000 fatal cancers per year may be
attributed, at least in part, to the release of air
toxics. This does not even include respiratory diseases
and birth defects that may be caused by these emissions.
emerging problems
In the past 20 years, scientific inquiries have revealed
the alarming new problems of global warming and ozone
depletion. We are now becoming increasingly aware of the
contribution of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide
(CO2) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) to the phenomenon
of global warming, and of the effects of CFCs on the
earth's stratospheric ozone layer. The scientific
community tells us that global warming, or the
``greenhouse effect,'' is believed to cause rising
climatic temperatures, and that depletion of the earth's
ozone is believed to cause skin cancer.
The Montreal Protocol is a positive step towards
international cooperation of the problem of ozone
depletion, but, as our knowledge of CFCs becomes more
sophisticated, the international treaty may become
outdated. With respect to global warming, many initiatives
that could be taken to reduce CO2 buildup in the
atmosphere--such as improving energy efficiency and
increasing reforestation--are attractive in and of
themselves. However, many unresolved scientific issues
still surround the phenomenon of global warming, and the
need to accelerate research in both areas cannot be
overstated. While we should continue to seek answers and
international cooperation, let us not neglect to act on
what we know and, if necessary, to act alone.
The authors of the original Clean Air Act were also
unable to anticipate the phenomenon of acid rain and the
associated long-range transboundary pollution problems.
However, the Administration's recent proposals attempt to
provide a solution by restricting SO2 emissions that
are known to contribute to the production of acid rain.
To the contrary, indoor air pollution--another new and
controversial issue that was discovered subsequent to the
passage of the original Clean Air Act--does not appear to
be receiving the level of attention that it deserves. New
information suggests that a substantial and growing
segment of the population suffers adverse health effects
as a result of indoor air quality problems. Using the
original Act's emphasis on health-related criteria as a
guide, this problem deserves more attention.
legal pioneers, then and now
As we consider these and other new challengers, we
should remind ourselves of an essential characteristic of
the 1970 Act, one that holds true to this day: it was an
``experimental law.'' It used innovative approaches to
achieve the desired results on a more timely basis than
provided under any previous law. It defined a new role for
government in areas previously believed to involve a
private right to a free resource. It was premised on a new
and basic public policy tenet--that the Federal Government
has a responsibility to assure that the health of the
public is protected from the effects of air pollution. In
other words, it was pioneering legislation.
The objectives of the original Clean Air Act are still
valid. Poor air quality affects the health of millions of
Americans. Thousands of rivers and lakes are being
destroyed by a change in their acid composition. Auto
emissions continue to contaminate the air in too many of
American cities. And now pollutants are being found that
pose a risk to the health and welfare of our people. It is
true that cleanup efforts have already improved many of
these conditions. But in considering the future of the
Clean Air Act, we would do ourselves a great disservice to
harbor any feelings of complacency when we considered the
trade-offs at stake.
I continue to believe that a healthy economy and clean
air are not mutually exclusive goals. As policymakers
guide this Act through the winding corridors of change in
national policy, I hope we will bear in mind that a great
nation cannot be measured solely in terms of its
industrial capacity and Gross Nation Product. Ultimately
our progress as a nation will be measured by how well we
preserve and improve our own quality of life and that of
future generations.
Fortunately, today's Americans now believe that
pollution is unacceptable ethically and economically. No
amount of resistance to our clean air laws based on claims
of cost or antagonism to objectives can change that. That
is the message of the 1970 Clean Air Act.
Earth Day 1970 helped create the national psyche which
molded that result. But a few committed, progressive
Senators' setting in a back room in the Dirksen Senate
Office Building made the political and intellectual
commitment which forced the achievement of that objective.
As Earth Day 1990 approaches, we should call the roll of
that small band of men who changed history so we don't
forget their important contribution! Jennings Randolph,
West Virginia. Stephen Young, Ohio. B. Everett Jordan,
North Carolina. Birch Bayh, Indiana. Joseph Montoya, New
Mexico. William Spong, Virginia. Thomas Eagleton,
Missouri. Mike Gravel, Alaska. John Sherman Cooper,
Kentucky. J. Caleb Boggs, Delaware. Howard Baker,
Tennessee. Robert Dole, Kansas. Edward Gurney, Florida.
And Robert Packwood, Oregon.
The American people owe a great deal to Earth Day, as
does much of my success in writing environmental laws.
Without the political momentum created by this event, we
might not have been able to pass such pioneering
legislation. Nor would people the world over be rallying
to the global warming issue without the spirit captured in
classrooms auditoriums, and amphitheaters across the
country in 1970. Earth Day 1990--and today's Senators and
Congressmen--have a similar opportunity. We must renew
that spirit so that our legislators can tackle the 1990
Clean Air Clean Air Amendments with the same energy and
innovative thinking.
The State of the Union
A Democratic View
Remarks by Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D-ME), Washington, DC
January 21, 1976.
I speak tonight for the restoration of American
democracy--for restoration of that now endangered
confidence which is essential to the life of freedom and
to the meaning of the Republic. It is that confidence
which has for 2 centuries animated the labors of a
citizenry with the expectation that the common effort
would inevitably lead to increasing opportunity--would
continually drive back those obstacles which limit the
citizen's freedom to direct and enhance the quality of
human life.
That confidence and the successful conduct of that
struggle is not some romantic dream, an old proverb
plucked from some ancient book for occasional Fourth of
July celebrations. It is the idea which has constituted
and defined our existence and progress as a Nation. It is
the reality which is the foundation and justification of
everything else--wealth and power, public institutions and
private enterprise, the building from which I speak and
the Constitution on which it was raised.
Two nights ago we heard from the President of the United
States. He struck a theme which profoundly misunderstands
both the realities and needs of the America he now helps
govern.
However, it is not my intention simply to answer the
President or argue with his convictions. The Democratic
leadership of the Congress in which I serve has asked me,
rather, to present another point of view. It is not the
opinion of Congress or of its Democratic majority. For I
am only qualified to speak as the senior Senator from
Maine, a Democrat, and as Chairman of the Senate Committee
on the Budget. Still, even though some members of my party
in Congress may not share all my views, we do share a
common bond: The oath and obligation of office--to defend
the Constitution of the United States, to advance its
principles, and to represent fairly and according to our
individual conscience and best understanding, the
interests of the people we serve--our own constituencies
and in the Nation whose well-being is our constitutional
obligation. And I can, and I intend, to represent and
discharge, that common mandate whose fulfillment is the
obligation of every member.
My message tonight is not one of comfort or reassurance.
But it is a truth and it is a warning.
I have just returned from 2 intensive weeks of travel,
listening and talking among my people back home in Maine.
We talked about a lot of very serious problems which are
shared by millions of Americans from coast to coast. The
problem which concerns me more than all the rest--because
unless we solve it, we cannot solve the rest--is the
extent to which you have lost confidence in your political
system and your ability to govern yourselves.
Too many of you do not believe the government cares
about you and your problems.
Too many of you believe that government can't do
anything about your problems.
Too many of you believe that government exists only for
the benefit of the few who are rich and powerful.
Too many of you believe that you can do nothing to
improve the performance of your government.
Too few of you are willing to try.
Political power in our system is still yours to use--if
you will.
If you doubt what I say, recall, if you will, the
Watergate affair and the reason why it was finally
resolved by an orderly transfer of power involving the
first resignation from office of a President in our entire
history. It was you who produced that result--not the
Congress--not even the courts. Your political institutions
moved when you insisted that they do.
You and your elected representatives are in this
business of governing together. When communication between
us breaks down, when we lose confidence in each other, we
lose the very essence of self-government.
I find no confidence that government can restore
economic health to our Nation--put people back to work,
get our factories open again--and stop the inflation that
robs our elderly and poor--and deprives every one of us of
our hard-earned dollars.
I find no confidence that government can do something
effective about this siege of crime that makes many of you
prisoners in your homes, behind doors that lock out the
threat which lurks in the darkness.
That government can make schools again into houses where
children can learn and prepare themselves for the future.
That government can slow down spiralling health costs,
that add more misery to your lives each year.
That government can bring our powerful oil industry
under control, to hold down the price of energy.
That government can stop a disastrous retreat from the
goal of environmental quality we set so resolutely not so
long ago.
And I find no confidence that government would begin to
curb the abuses of power that threaten you.
The abuse of power by corporations that dominate the
marketplace, charging what they want--who ignore the
quality of our air and water--the safety of workers--the
quality of goods--who each year push and shove for more
tax privileges and more exemptions from law--corporations,
in other words, that each year grow more wealthy and more
powerful.
And we can begin to do what we must do to insure that
government will curb its own abuses.
I find no confidence that government can curb its
abuses--the abuse of government power goes on--the abuse
of our rights by the FBI and the CIA have been exposed--
the war in Vietnam went on for years--the no longer secret
war in Angola goes on.
Everywhere I turn in this Nation, these are the problems
I hear from your lips.
This is the State of the Union.
And it is also a Congressional agenda for action.
The goodness and the strength of the American people is
not diminished by the corruption of a few of our leaders.
Our system of reward for hard work is not discredited by
a few years of hard times.
Our government--the model for free people everywhere in
the world--has not been destroyed by a few Presidents or
the failure of Congress to block them in time.
We have had some very bad times in our country in these
last few years.
But our people are still strong.
The Republic still stands.
Our freely elected government can still work.
Who among us would trade America for any other country
in the long history of the world?
We don't need a new system.
What we need is the will to make our system work.
We must reject those of timid vision who counsel us to
go back----
To go back to simpler times now gone forever.
To go back on the promises we have made to each other.
To go back on our guarantee to every American for a
decent job and secure retirement.
To go back on our commitment to quality education and
affordable health care.
To go back on consumer protection and worker safety.
To go back on our commitment to a clean environment.
To go back and give up.
We cannot go back.
We cannot give up.
And we will not.
If we've learned anything--as a Nation--from Valley
Forge to Yorktown, from the Great Depression to the
landing on the moon--it is this: Give Americans the tools
and they'll do the job.
We are entering a period when the country's capacity to
produce and create can be greater than at any time in
recent history. There are houses to design and build.
There are roads to build, to repair. There are rivers to
clean. There are railroads to mend. There are day-care
centers to build and to operate so that more young women
can participate in revitalizing America. There are books
to be written and printed. There are farms to be expanded
and worked. There are cities to rebuild. There are new
sources of energy to be developed and produced. Oh, yes,
we have work to do.
Clearly, something is wrong in a system in which there
is so much work to be done at the same time there are so
many people without work.
And that problem is not only the business of business.
It is also the business of government.
We all have a big stake in that effort. We all pay for
unemployment.
For every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate--
for every 1 million Americans out of work--we all pay $3
billion more in unemployment compensation and welfare
checks and lose $14 billion in taxes. That means that
today's unemployment costs us taxpayers more than $65
billion a year.
President Ford's budgets for these 2 years of recession
have included more than $40 billion for unemployment
compensation and jobless payments alone--and another $14
billion in interest on the extra national debt that
unemployment has cost.
But the President's budget offers no new jobs. In fact,
it proposes cutbacks in the existing, limited emergency
jobs program Congress has enacted.
The President's plans for our economy are penny-wise and
pound-foolish. Under them, America's factories are
producing only three fourths as many goods as they
actually could.
That means fewer jobs and higher prices.
If we had just enough jobs this year to match the
unemployment rate of 1968, we would collect enough Federal
taxes to wipe out the entire Federal deficit, this year
and next.
But the President's budget is designed to keep
unemployment over 7 percent for another year and more. To
keep 7 million Americans unemployed at this time a year
from now. Most economists believe that if the
administration's policies are followed, unemployment will
not fall below 7 percent in this decade.
We American taxpayers pay a staggering price for these
jobless policies.
But the Americans who want work and can't find it pay so
much more.
What price does a father or mother pay who cannot
support their children? What price does a master carpenter
pay when he is reduced to welfare? How can we calculate
the cost to America's jobless in lost seniority, job-
training, and pension rights? What price will we all pay
when two out of every five inner city youths grow up
without ever having had a full-time job?
Experts in both government and private enterprise tell
us that we can, if we choose, significantly reduce the
present unemployment during the next fiscal year. Direct
employment programs--using Federal dollars to pay for
public service jobs like classroom teaching aides and
hospital attendants--would produce the most jobs at the
lowest total cost.
Federal assistance to local communities for short-term
public works projects and to avoid layoffs in local
government services--like police protection and trash
collection--also have high job yields for the tax dollars
invested.
Yet President Ford says he intends to veto even the
limited program pending in the Congress now for short-term
public works and financial assistance to local communities
which have high jobless rates. This anti-recession bill--
which the President seeks to block--would create 300,000
jobs this year.
The President says we cannot afford to help Americans
find work.
I say we cannot, as taxpayers, afford not to.
And those jobs should be in addition to the jobs
Congress could create in private industry by additional
cuts in taxes without increasing present Federal spending
levels. And Congress could avoid discouraging private
sector employment by rejecting the President's proposals
to increase payroll taxes.
As I listen to my people in Maine, and occasionally to
those outside the State, it is clear that one of the most
frightening economic results of recent years is
inflation--and especially the quadrupling of oil prices.
They have put the very necessities of life beyond the
reach of more and more of our citizens.
The administration has tried hard to make the case that
budget deficits are a direct cause of inflation. I wish
the American economy were that simple. Curing inflation
then would be a simple matter of cutting the budget.
Unfortunately, the facts do not bear out the
administration claim.
In 1974, for example, the Federal Government deficit was
the smallest in the past several years. But in that year,
1974, both inflation and interest rates reached their
highest points in 21 years.
Prices were high that year because of the sudden
increase in oil prices, steep increases in food prices,
and a deliberate policy by the Federal Reserve Board to
keep interest rates high. The size of the deficit was
incidental.
The administration did not raise oil prices. It was not
responsible for poor crops around the world during the
late 1960's and early 1970's. But it compounded the
problems, partly by inept, often panicky management of the
economy, starting with the first Nixon administration. The
administration raced the economies engine in election
years and then created recessions to curb the resulting
inflation. It moved too quickly from one set of wage-price
controls to another without ever giving any of them a
chance to work. It tried to impose domestic oil price
increases on top of the foreign increases that would have
doubled the impact. It compounded the poor crop years by
selling too much of this Nation's grain reserves to the
Soviet Union.
What the Nation needs at this time is leadership that
will not jump from one economic panic button to another.
We need a consistent, responsible, non-partisan plan for
protecting the economy from further shocks.
We need an energy policy that will keep the prices of
oil and natural gas at reasonable levels until the economy
can absorb increases.
We need a food policy that gives farmers a guarantee of
reasonable incomes and consumers a guarantee of reasonable
prices. A crop failure in Russia should not be permitted
to disturb that balance.
We need a wage-price council which will make life
miserable for any big corporation that raises prices
without very good reason and will do so in the name of the
President of the United States.
We need an anti-trust policy that will move immediately
to prevent powerful firms from gaining too much control
over both markets and capital, not spend years in court
arguing cases after it is too late.
Federal deficits are not the cause of the inflation we
have experienced in the last 2 years, but they can be in
the future, and we must be concerned about the
possibility, as the economy recovers its health.
Beyond that, wasteful government spending, inefficient
and ineffective programs, are burdens taxpayers ought not
to be asked to carry. More than that, they rob us of the
resources we need to serve high priority national needs.
Moreover, their very existence undermines that public
confidence in government which is essential and so sadly
lacking.
Congress, recognizing this, has enacted a new budget
process to remedy this now-chronic national financial
crisis.
Our job is to decide on a ceiling on spending and a
floor under taxes for each year.
In doing so we also set an economic policy for the
country and ration the dollars in the budget according to
our actual national needs.
Our goal is to balance the budget as soon as the economy
permits.
We have imposed a tough spending ceiling on the Federal
Government this year.
We will impose a similar spending ceiling next year and
every year.
We have held the Federal deficit to the lowest possible
level consistent with reducing unemployment.
And, in fact, we have held the Federal deficit $25
billion below the Secretary of the Treasury's estimate of
last spring.
And we are using the process to determine the economic
impact of tax and regulatory policies.
Finally, we will use all of this information to put
spending priorities more in line with real needs, and to
weed out programs which cost too much or produce too
little.
Last year we reduced the President's requests for
defense and foreign military aid to levels we thought were
closer to our real defense needs and purposes.
We have used part of the money we saved to increase
jobs, health care and social security.
We rejected at least $10 to $15 billion in other
requests to hold down the deficit.
But the new budget reform process is just one step in a
broader effort we must undertake.
We need a second spending reform to make sure the
Federal money we spend is effectively used.
We should question the most basic assumption about every
program.
Any programs not doing the job or duplicating better run
programs should be eliminated.
By the end of every 4 years, all programs should be
reviewed in this process.
The only program excepted from this review should be the
Social Security program, which is, after all, an insurance
system.
We have learned that we can't solve our problems by
simply throwing Federal dollars at them. In the past 7
years, the Federal Government has provided more than $4
billion to improve local law enforcement. President Ford
is now proposing to spend $7 billion more. During the same
7 years crime has increased 55 percent.
At the same time, we know that we can't solve priority
problems like pollution or provide a national defense
without a substantial commitment of tax dollars. So we
must pursue the hard, detailed job of evaluating Federal
spending in each and every area of the budget. We must buy
only what we need. And at the lowest sound cost.
I was disappointed that the President made no proposals
in his State of the Union message to improve government
efficiency--to bring new businesslike methods into the
bureaucracy.
Under our system the President, after all, is the Chief
Executive.
Efficiency in the general government is his
responsibility.
But what steps has he taken to improve efficiency and
reduce costs in the Executive Branch?
Why does it cost the government twice as much as a
private insurance company to process medical claims?
Why does the government take months to get the first
check out to a woman entitled to a Federal pension?
Why does the Social Security Administration take a year
or more to process a citizen's claim for disability
compensation?
Why can't defense contractors be made to deliver their
goods at agreed-upon prices without cost overruns? Have
you ever heard of a Defense Department employee being
fired for permitting a cost overrun paid for with our tax
dollars?
Through the new Congressional budget reform process,
Congress has laid the groundwork for more efficient
government at tax savings to our citizens.
I hope President Ford will join us in that effort.
I do not believe most Americans want their government
dismantled.
We can't very well fire the mailmen, discharge our armed
forces, or lay off the people who run the computers that
print our Social Security checks.
But we can expect maximum efficiency and performance in
office by everyone who draws a Federal salary.
Let us now ask ourselves about America's place in the
world.
What is your definition of national security? . . .
protecting our shores from attack? . . . standing by our
allies in Western Europe and Asia? . . . protecting our
vital economic interests? . . . playing a leadership role
in moving the world away from the arms race? . . . if it
is, I would agree.
We must also ask what is the most dangerous foreign
policy problem we face today? I think, once again, it is a
gulf of doubt and mistrust between us and our government.
That gulf has widened since the tragic collapse of
Vietnam.
It was less than a year ago that we saw films of South
Vietnamese soldiers pushing women and children away from
evacuation planes in Danang . . . we saw Americans being
airlifted from the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon
to Navy ships in the China sea. Until that end, this
administration was pleading for another $720 million to
spend on a cause that the American people had long since
recognized was wrong and hopeless.
Vietnam was a bitter disappointment.
But it also offered us some positive lessons: U.S.
interests are not served by military intervention
everywhere in the world where we see instability. And the
U.S. can conduct a responsible policy toward its potential
adversaries and toward its allies . . . and can pursue its
interests after Vietnam--better, if anything, than before.
Yet just last month, we discovered that the President
has involved our Nation in a major way in yet another far
off land: in Angola, where our Nation's interests and
those of the free world are far from clear.
The Senate voted against any further expenditures for
Angola.
As in Vietnam, we find ourselves deeply committed
without prior notice or consultation with our people in a
country where U.S. interests could not possibly be served
at any price.
A free people deserve to be informed and to consent to
the foreign policy we pursue.
Much of the world today is watching with amazement as a
Congress of the United States examines U.S. intelligence
operations overseas. I know many of you must have asked
yourselves, as I have, whether it is necessary to hang out
the dirty linen--to talk about assassination attempts, to
admit what the whole world knows about both us and
themselves, that nations spy.
Yes, it is necessary. How else is the American public to
get hold of its foreign policy again? How else can we
guarantee that interventions in other countries are an
appropriate expression of deliberate U.S. policy, and not
the making of some faceless bureaucrat? Oh, sure, it is
inconvenient to conduct foreign policy in the open, and,
certainly there will always be a need for intelligence
work and for secrecy within the bounds of established
policy.
But a Republic gets its strength from the consent of the
governed and from a consensus on shared objectives. It
gets only weakness and disappointment from secrecy and
surprise.
So let us seek a foreign policy we can talk about in
public and agree to in advance.
Let us defend our real interests--and leave no doubt of
it. But where our interest is not directly or clearly
involved, let our adversaries learn, as we did in Vietnam,
the expensive lesson of the limits of their power.
Let us be neither patsy nor bully for the other nations
of the world.
Let us pursue a lessening of tensions with the Soviet
Union and China, wherever it is consistent with our own
interests.
Let us extend a helping hand to the two-thirds of the
people of the world who have so little. And let us do so
with the confidence of a truly great people. We do not
need to always win all our debates with every nation in
the world.
Let our greatness be, not that we always win, but that--
as God gives us the power to see it--we are always in
pursuit of the right.
In his State of the Union message--and in the budget he
sent us--the President has made some serious proposals for
reduction in Federal expenditures and changes in our
national priorities.
The President's program includes a number of ideas to
simply shift the cost of Federal programs from the Federal
Government to the States and the cities. We must frankly
be skeptical of such proposals that simply raise State and
local taxes. But I believe Congress must evaluate the
President's proposals with an open mind.
Where they are simply gimmicks or mistakes, they should
be rejected.
Where they need amendment, they should be shaped to meet
America's actual needs.
Where they make sense, they should be adopted.
We must not be afraid of change.
Just as we cannot go back to the old days, we must be
ready to change old ways to meet new needs and present
realities.
I do not believe we face any problems we cannot solve.
Our problems are man-made, and men and women can find
their solutions.
We need the will to try.
The State of the Union is as strong as the bond between
us.
So let us make a pledge to one another tonight.
Assert your right to share control of our national
destiny. Decide now that you are going to vote in the
Presidential and Congressional, State and local elections
this fall, and keep that commitment.
But put the politicians who seek your vote in those
elections to a stringent test.
Are they men of their word?
If they promise more government benefits and services,
do they also say how much they will cost?
If they say they are going to reduce the size of
government, do they tell you which services you are going
to go without and how much that will save?
Do they offer specific proposals or simply slogans?
The Congress which meets in this building is your
Congress if you participate in its election and
supervision.
Together, we are the union.
And I find the State of that Union very strong indeed.
Statements from the Congressional Record
April 7, 1975.
S. 1359
S. 1359. A bill to coordinate State and local government
budget-related actions with Federal Government efforts to
stimulate economic recovery by establishing a system of
emergency support grants to State and local governments.
Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today I am introducing with
Senator Humphrey legislation which I believe will provide
much-needed balance to the efforts of this Congress to
restore our country to economic health.
Thus far, both the debate we have had and the action we
have taken in the Congress to deal with recession have
focused on the long-accepted remedy of pumping more money
back into the private sector--through tax rebates to
individuals, investment incentives to business, and public
service jobs to absorb some of the unemployed.
The public sector, on the other hand, has largely been
ignored in economic policy considerations to date. And
yet, States and local governments not only comprise a
major segment of our economy, but also are among the
hardest hit victims of today's inflation-recession
squeeze.
State and local governments have been fighting the
battle against inflation for some time. These governments
have been especially hard hit because of the labor-
intensive nature of the goods and services they must
purchase.
Today, while the costs to State and local governments
continue to rise, the deepening recession is adding new
burdens to already overstrained budgets. The general
economic slowdown is beginning to take a toll on revenues
which--because of high unemployment and the standstill in
new construction--are not rising as rapidly as
anticipated. Rising unemployment is placing new demands on
social services while the demand for basic local
services--such as police and fire protection--is not
diminished.
Earlier this winter, the Subcommittee on
Intergovernmental Relations--which I chair--held hearings
to try and determine just how bad the fiscal situation of
State and local governments really is. The news was almost
uniformly bad.
Severe budgetary pressures resulting from the combined
impact of inflation and recession are forcing local
governments across the country to take drastic steps.
Newark, with one of the highest property tax rates in the
country, has had to raise that rate two times within the
past year, along with laying off hundreds of city
employees.
In New York City, revenues for the last 6 months of 1974
fell $150 million short of estimates, while inflation
added $280 million to the costs of running the city. To
make up for the shortfall, Mayor Beame has had to raise
city real estate and sales taxes and lay off city
employees possibly numbering in the thousands.
Cleveland has had to lay off several hundred city
employees, and has now reduced garbage collection to twice
a month. In Wilmington, DE, and Baltimore, MD, job freezes
have been in effect for some time, and the latter is still
anticipating a substantial deficit for the next fiscal
year. In Detroit, the mayor has just announced that as
many as 25 percent of the city's employees may be laid off
to balance next year's budget, where a deficit of between
$65 to $85 million is now projected.
The results of a telephone survey conducted by the
National League of Cities and submitted to the
subcommittee indicate that the problem is not limited to
those large cities which have perennial fiscal troubles.
Of the 67 cities surveyed by the League, 42 responded that
either tax increases or service cutbacks will be necessary
to survive their fiscal squeeze. Thirty-six responded that
they were being forced to defer or cancel planned capital
improvements. And 43 reported that they anticipate
revenues to fall short of original estimates because of
the depressed economy. Cities where the fiscal squeeze is
forcing such actions include Englewood, CA, DeKalb, IL,
Auburn, ME, and Binghamton, NY.
In my own State of Maine, a survey of local government
officials conducted by my office revealed that over half
of those communities contacted have already had to raise
local taxes, or else expect to do so very soon.
The cities and towns included in these two surveys range
in size from quite small--in Maine--to a few cities the
size of Pittsburgh. Primarily they are medium size. Not
included are the giant urban centers that we usually
associate with chronic and severe fiscal problems.
At the State level, the fiscal squeeze is not as
critical, although there is reason to believe that the
States have not yet felt the full impact of recession.
Even so, a number of States are perilously close to severe
fiscal problems, and a few--most notably New York and
Massachusetts--are already there.
Tax increases have been called for by the Governors of
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Vermont. In Rhode
Island and Connecticut, tax increases may be unavoidable
to balance the State budget. An article from the March 17,
New York Times which follows my remarks elaborates further
on the current financial problems of several of the
States.
These examples do not bode well for the success of our
efforts here in the Congress to revive the economy.
While we at the Federal level are trying to speed up
economic recovery by cutting taxes, State and local
governments are delaying the impact of that effort by
raising their own taxes. While we at the Federal level are
trying to target the stimulus to those most in need, by
using the progressive income tax structure, State and
local governments are placing the burden back on those
hardest hit by raising regressive local taxes. And while
we at the Federal level are trying to create new jobs
through public service employment, State and local
governments are blunting that goal by cutting back on job-
producing capital projects and by laying off regular
employees, only to replace them with public service
employees.
In the past, when the Federal Government accounted for a
much larger share of the public sector than it does today,
we may have been able to ignore such counterproductive
actions at the State and local level. But subnational
government today is one of the fastest growing sectors of
the economy, presently employing four times as many
persons as the Federal Government, and spending almost
two-thirds as much. It is increasingly clear, therefore,
that the actions of this major force in the public sector
can be ignored only to the detriment of the economic
health of the Nation as a whole.
To remedy this situation, economic policymakers need to
begin now to broaden their sights to include the public
sector in any antirecession program.
The legislation we are introducing today--the
Intergovernmental Countercyclical Assistance of 1975--is a
substantial move in that direction.
The purpose of this legislation is simple. It is not to
bail individual governments out of fiscal trouble--at
times such as this, a little belt tightening by all
governments is necessary. Rather, it is simply to provide
help to State and local governments in bridging the gap
caused by today's most unique economic circumstances--so
that these governments will have not to rely so heavily
upon budgetary tools which run counter to Federal efforts
to revive the economy.
The logic behind the legislation is compelling. At a
time when economic recovery is our highest national
priority, it simply does not make sense to have
governments at different levels working at cross purposes
to one another.
And the arguments for the legislation are strong.
In the first place, the assistance provided under this
proposal is very selectively targeted--to reach only those
States and localities hard hit by the recession.
Assistance would be triggered initially when national
unemployment reached a level of 6 percent. Further, no
State or locality would receive assistance under the
program unless its own unemployment rate had reached 6
percent.
Second, the program is not self-perpetuating. Unlike
most Federal programs which cost more as time passes,
countercyclical assistance would phase itself out as the
economy grows healthier, and would terminate altogether
when national unemployment drops below 6 percent.
Third, and perhaps most important, the impact of this
program would be felt now, when it is most needed, not
several years down the road.
Both the tax cut we have just enacted and the increased
funding for public service employment which we are likely
to appropriate have an impact which is more or less
immediate.
The impact of a third type of antirecession measure now
being considered--accelerated public works--may not be
felt for some time. Consider the experience with an
accelerated public works program adopted by Congress in
1962. Although the initial obligational authority was $850
million, only $62 million was spent in the first year. The
bulk of the funds were not actually spent until 1964 and
1965, after the recession was over.
Countercyclical assistance does not suffer from that
handicap.
The Senate Budget Committee will begin this week to
consider items to be included in the first concurrent
resolution which will be presented to the Senate later
this spring.
The choices we will have to make will not be easy. The
Budget Committee staff is presently projecting a deficit
of $68 billion, without the addition of programs which
appear to be well on their way to passage. Economists have
suggested that the economy can sustain a deficit of
between $70 to $75 billion. That does not leave us much
room to work with.
Nevertheless, I believe that we should put
countercyclical assistance high on our list of priorities.
The Federal Government will be spending many billions of
dollars in the next several months to help revive the
economy. Countercyclical assistance to State and local
governments can do a great deal to help insure the success
of that effort.
a
May 28, 1974.
Freedom Of Information Act--Amendment
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Freedom of Information
Act provides that agencies are permitted to withhold from
the public classified information relating to national
defense or foreign policy (exemption 1). The amendment I
submit today to S. 2543 would in no way alter that
protection for sensitive military or diplomatic data. It
would only provide that suits contesting the priority of
agency claims under the first exemption would be handled
by Federal judges in the same way as cases challenging the
validity of claims under the eight other permissive
exemptions from the act's disclosure standards.
The purpose of the deletion I propose is to preserve for
judges the freedom to conduct complete de novo review of
Freedom of Information Act cases in which information is
withheld by agencies under the claim that it falls within
exemption 1 of the act, permitting withholding for
material ``specifically required by Executive order to be
kept secret in the interest of the national defense or
foreign policy''--that is, classified information. The
language of section (b)(4)(B)(ii) would, if left in the
statute, give a special status to exemption 1 material,
unlike that accorded any other claimed Government secrets.
The subsection would substitute for de novo judicial
review of the Government's case for withholding (with the
burden on the Government to sustain its action) an
arrangement shifting that burden to a judge to decide
whether or not the contested secrecy compiled with the
undefined ``reasonableness'' standard.
If an agency head certified that classified material
being withheld is properly classified, the judge--even
after in camera examination--may only reject such
certification by finding the withholding to be ``without a
reasonable basis'' under the criteria of the Executive
order authorizing Government-wide classification
practices. There is no definition in the bill or the
accompanying report of what such a reasonable basis would
be.
I believe there is no reason to require the courts to
accord such special status to cases involving classified
secrets, as opposed to other types of sensitive
information the Government seeks to withhold. The standard
of full de novo review should be the same in all Freedom
of Information Act cases.
a
May 30, 1974.
Amendment No. 1356
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise with some reluctance
today to offer an amendment to the generally excellent
Freedom of Information Act amendments offered by my friend
and able colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts. No one
should underestimate the diligence and concern with which
he and other members of the Committee on the Judiciary
have worked to insure that the changes made in the 1967
act will, in fact, further the vital work of making
Government records readily available for public scrutiny
and making the conduct of the public business a subject
for informed public comment.
It is because the bill before us is so very rare and
important an opportunity to correct the defects we
discovered in the administration of the act during joint
hearings I conducted with Senator Kennedy and Senator
Ervin last year that I wish to insure that we fully meet
our responsibility to make the law a clear expression of
congressional intent. In many important procedural areas,
S. 2543, as the Judiciary Committee has reported it, will
close loopholes through which agencies were evading their
duties to the public right to know.
For example, this legislation will enable courts to
award costs and attorneys' fees to plaintiffs who
successfully contest agency withholding of information.
The price of a court suit has too long been a deterrent to
legitimate citizen contests of Government secrecy claims.
Additionally, the bill will require agencies to be prompt
in responding to requests for access to information. It
will bar the stalling tactics which too many agencies have
used to frustrate requests for material until the material
loses its timeliness to an issue under public debate. And
the bill provides long-overdue assurance that agencies
will give full report to the Congress of their policies
and actions in handling Freedom of Information Act cases.
With all these significant advances in its favor, there
should be little reason to argue with the wisdom of the
bill's authors. But in one vital respect, S. 2543 runs
counter to the purpose I and 21 cosponsors had in
introducing its predecessor, S. 1142, and endangers the
momentum this Congress is developing toward bringing the
problem of Government secrecy under review and control.
Responding to the Supreme Court ruling of January 22,
1973, in the case of Environmental Protection Agency et
al. v. Patsy T. Mink et al., I had proposed in S. 1142
that we require Federal judges to review in camera the
contents of records the Government wished to withhold on
grounds of security classification. I agree that such a
requirement would have been an excessive response to the
Court's holding that the original act prohibited in camera
inspection, of classified records, and I am completely at
ease with the language in S. 2543 that makes in camera
inspection possible at the discretion of the judges
whenever any of the nine permissive exemptions are
asserted. What I cannot accept and what I move today to
strike in the subsequent language which would force judges
to conduct the proceedings of in their chambers in such a
way that the presumption of validity for a classification
marking would be overwhelming.
Under the present terms of S. 2543, the Court is
permitted to make a determination in camera to resolve the
question of whether or not the information was properly
classified under the criteria established by the
appropriate Executive order or statute. However, if an
affidavit is on record filed by the head of the agency
controlling the information certifying that the head of
the agency in fact examined the information and determined
that it was properly classified, the judge must sustain
the withholding unless he ``finds the withholding is
without a reasonable basis under such criteria.''
If this provision is allowed to stand, it will make the
independent judicial evaluation meaningless. This
provision would, in fact, shift the burden of proof away
from the Government and go against the express language in
section (a) of the Freedom of Information Act, which
states that in court review ``the burden of proof shall be
on the Government to sustain its action.'' Under the
amendment I propose, the court could still, if it wishes,
make note of an affidavit submitted by the head of an
agency, just as the court could request or accept any
data, explanatory information or assistance it deems
relevant when making its determination. However, to give
express statutory authority to such an affidavit goes far
to reduce the judicial role to that of a mere concurrence
in Executive decisionmaking.
The express reason for amending the section of the act
dealing with review of classified information grows, as I
indicated, from concern with the Supreme Court ruling in
the Mink case last year. In that case 32 Members of
Congress, bringing suit as private citizens, sought access
to information dealing with the atomic test on Amchitka
Island in Alaska. The U.S. Court of Appeals directed the
Federal district judge to review the documents in camera
to determine which, if any, should be released. This
seemed an appropriate step since the act does provide for
court determination on a de novo basis of the validity of
any executive branch withholdings.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court reached a decision in
that case which I regard as somewhat tortuous. The Court
held that in camera review of material classified for
national defense or foreign policy reasons is not
permitted by the act. The basis of this decision was
exemption No. 1, which permits withholding of matters
authorized by Executive order to be kept secret in the
interests of national defense or foreign policy.
The Supreme Court decided that once the Executive had
shown that documents were so classified, the judiciary
could not intrude. Thus, the mere rubberstamping of a
document as ``secret'' could forever immunize it from
disclosure. All the Court could determine was whether it
was so stamped.
The abuses inherent in such a system of unrestrained
secrecy are obvious. As the system has operated, there is
no specific Executive order for each classified document.
Instead, the President issued one single Executive order
establishing the entire classification system, and all of
the millions of documents stamped ``secret'' under this
authorization over succeeding years are now forbidden to
even the most superficial judicial scrutiny. One of the
17,364 authorized classifiers in the Government could
stamp the Manhattan telephone directory ``top secret'' and
no court could order the marking changed. Under the
Supreme Court edict, the Executive need only dispatch an
affidavit certifying that the directory was classified
pursuant to the Executive order, and no action could be
taken.
Obviously, something must be done to correct this
strained court interpretation. It need not be a drastic
step. Actually, it was the original intention of Congress
in adopting the Freedom of Information Act to increase the
disclosure of information. Congress authorized de novo
probes by the judiciary as a check on arbitrary
withholding actions by the Executive. Typically, the de
novo process involves in camera inspections. These have
regularly been carried out by lower courts in the case of
materials withheld under other exemptions in the act. They
can be barred under exemption No. 1, only through a
misguided reading of the act and by ignoring the wrongful
consequences.
But in correcting this fault, to permit in camera review
of documents withheld under any of the exemptions, S. 2543
would simultaneously erect such restrictions around the
conduct of the review when classified material was at
issue that the permission could probably never be fully
utilized.
By telling judges so specifically how to manage their
inquiry into the propriety of a classification marking, we
show a strange contempt for their ability to devise
procedures on their own to help them reach a just
decision. Moreover, by giving classified material a status
unlike that of any other claimed Government secret, we
foster the outworn myth that only those in possession of
military and diplomatic confidences can have the expertise
to decide with whom and when to share their knowledge.
It should not have required the deceptions practiced on
the American public under the banner of national secrecy
in the course of the Vietnam war or since to prove to us
that Government classifiers must be subject to some
impartial review. If courts cannot have full latitude to
conduct that review, no one can. And if we constrict the
manner in which courts may perform this vital review
function, we make the classifiers privileged officials,
almost immune from the accountability we insist on from
their colleagues.
I object to the idea that anything but full de novo
review will give us the assurance that classification--
like other aspects of claimed secrecy--has been brought
under check. I cannot accept an undefined reasonableness
standard as the only basis on which courts may overrule an
agency head's certification of the propriety of
classification. And I cannot understand why we should
trust a Federal judge to be able to sort out valid from
invalid claims of Executive privilege in the Watergate
affair but not trust him or his colleagues to make the
same unfettered judgments in matters allegedly connected
to the conduct of defense of foreign policy.
Therefore, while I am anxious to compliment the chief
sponsor of S. 2543 on the fine work that has been done and
to praise the Judiciary Committee for its sincere
commitment in improving the working of the Freedom of
Information Act, I must respectfully move to strike these
17 offensive and unnecessary lines and to make the bill
what we all want it to be--a restatement of congressional
commitment to an open, democratic society.
a
March 8, 1973.
S. 1142
S. 1142. A bill to amend section 552 of title 5, United
States Code, known as the ``Freedom of Information Act.''
Referred jointly, by unanimous consent, to the Committee
on the Judiciary and the Committee on Government
Operations.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I introduce today a bill to
amend the Freedom of Information Act of 1967 and ask
unanimous consent that it be referred to the Committee on
Government Operations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, these amendments which are
cosponsored by 13 Senators from both sides of the aisle
respond to a call many of us have heard for full
implementation of the people's right to know the way in
which they are governed. This bill, the result of
intensive investigation in the 92d Congress by
Representative William Moorhead's Subcommittee on Foreign
Operations and Government Information, is a major
contribution to answering that demand.
We are the best-informed of nations and the worst-
informed. Americans in 1973 have access to more data,
statistics, studies and opinions than the citizens of any
other democracy, including their own, have ever had
before. In theory, our people have available to them all
the information they need to make wise and intelligent
choices on public policy.
In practice, however, the flow of vital information from
the Governors to the governed is controlled and restricted
by considerations that are alien to our concept of open
democracy. The Executive asserts the power to withhold
from the people and from the Congress some or all of the
expert advice it receives and acts on. A President or his
spokesman can make public those facts which best support a
decision he has already made and can conceal arguments for
alternatives he has rejected.
One branch of the Armed Forces can keep its research
secret from the others, putting its competitive drive for
appropriations ahead of the public interest in efficiency.
Officials in charge of regulating prices or communications
or pollution or consumer safety can be subjected to secret
influences whose power to affect decision is increased by
their ability to operate behind closed doors and to lock
their advice into closed files.
Arguments made in private may be persuasive. They may
even be correct. But where the public interest is at
stake, argument must be open so that it can be rebutted.
To be enforceable in a society built on trust, decisions
must be reached in a manner that permits all those
concerned to have equal access to the decisionmakers.
These amendments go far to remove obstructions which
many Federal agencies have put in the way of those
citizens who seek to know. They provide that judges shall
question the reasons asserted by an executive agency for
claiming the privilege of secrecy for its records and
shall examine the records themselves to see how reasonable
each claim is. They affirm the right of Congress to have
access to the information on which the Executive
deliberates and acts.
I am proud to bring this legislation before the Senate
at the same time it goes before the other body. Together
we can examine the problems which have arisen in
implementing the sound purpose of the Freedom of
Information Act and can work to strengthen that purpose
and our democracy.
a
November 20, 1973.
Our Failure to Plan For Our Nation's Growth
Mr. MUSKIE. America is awakening to a new age. I wish I
could say it was an age of abundance and unlimited
prosperity. It is not.
It is an age when we in America finally realize that our
world is not a cornucopia. There are limits to its
resources, limits to its air, water and land, limits to
its ability to sustain human life.
Many Americans discovered only 2 weeks ago that there is
an energy crisis. Most of us here in this room know that
this energy crisis was the result of poor planning or
worse, no planning at all, on the part of the Nation's
energy companies.
We are reacting to the energy crisis with some long
overdue energy conservation measures--too many of which
are voluntary; with a vigorous Federal commitment to
energy policy and planning--which will not show results
until the end of the decade; and with a massive effort to
increase the supplies--which will not be available to
relieve our shortages for some time.
Most Americans don't realize that there is also a
critical shortage of land in many parts of this country,
and that the shortage is getting worse. Let us all hope
that it will not take the kind of crisis we face in our
energy supply to do something about it.
ii
There are some encouraging signs of a growing awareness
of the limited nature of our natural resources.
In just a few years, public concern has led to the
enactment of effective Federal legislation to control the
pollution of our air and water--legislation which requires
land use decisions for the maintenance and improvement of
environmental quality. The Federal awareness of
environmental interests and issues has increased vastly.
At the State and local level this new awareness is also
apparent and pervasive. In no fewer than nine States,
statewide movements exist for protecting scenic areas,
preventing over-growth, and slowing development processes
that threaten to degrade the environment.
Last year in California this mood exhibited its
political viability as well as its grass roots energy in
several areas:
Passage of proposition 20, the coastline initiative;
Passage of height limitations for new buildings in Santa
Barbara and San Diego;
Approval of open space purchases in San Mateo, Santa
Clara and Marin counties;
And, rejections by citizens of the San Francisco Bay
area of State highway efforts to construct a new bridge
between Oakland and San Francisco.
The new mood indicates that this Nation has begun to
realize how far its environment has deteriorated. But
stronger efforts to retard future deterioration and to
begin to improve the existing environment are urgently
needed.
iii
It is unfortunate that Americans have waited so long to
recognize the relationship between urban growth and
pollution. Twenty years ago all levels of Government could
have established patterns to accommodate and guide urban
growth in ways which would have minimized the harsh
effects on the environment and the severe strain on our
natural resources.
But the growth syndrome--not the adverse impact of that
growth--dominated governmental decisions. A nation growing
out of war and depression was not concerned with the by-
products of exponential expansion. As with so many other
crises, this country has waited and reacted to
environmental deterioration when it could have anticipated
and planned sensibly to avoid it.
iv
What we must now do is to take those steps necessary to
repair the damage inflicted by this neglect and to make
constructive plans to avoid future crises. Although our
recently enacted Federal laws on air and water pollution
have moved boldly in this direction, much remains to be
done to control the most important causes of environmental
deterioration--population expansion and urban growth.
v
With few exceptions, the varied and complex land use
controls in use today by some 10,000 local governments are
little more than refinements upon the land use controls
developed and validated in the first third of this
century.
They have enabled local governments for the first time
to place significant restrictions on private land use to
protect the larger public interest. Yet, in keeping with
the traditional concept of land, the larger public
interest was--and still is--interpreted to be protection
of property values and the economic value of land. Freely
translated, protection of the public interest in land use
has been and is protection of the private interest. The
dependency of cities on property taxes reinforces this
prevailing purpose of land use decisions.
vi
Despite refinements in the last 40 years, planning and
regulatory controls have failed to address the pressures
accompanying urban growth.
These inadequacies have left four areas where present
land use controls and policies need major improvements.
First, to protect property values and to maximize their
tax bases, local governments have taken an essentially
negative approach to land use. They employ their land use
controls simply to prohibit what they view as undesirable
uses of land. Most cities have treated these negative
local land use regulations as though they represented all
the land use planning necessary. Thus, rather than guiding
planned development, existing land use controls have
protected development while neglecting more comprehensive
planning on a metropolitan-wide basis.
Second, States, with few exceptions, have failed to
accept responsibility for overseeing local land use
planning. The regulations and development they themselves
control too often fail to promote the public interest of
the local community, and existing plans of local
governments too often adversely affect the public interest
of larger areas such as the region or the State as a
whole.
Third, where planning has been conducted, it has too
frequently served single missions or purposes. Planning of
this nature has seldom related specific missions or
purposes to a balanced range of regional, State or
national goals.
Planning for particular kinds of activities has left the
planner and the citizen with narrow ``either-or''
decisions, often on a haphazard case-by-case basis.
Consideration of long-term alternative uses of the land
is seldom mandated and even less often achieved in single-
purpose planning.
The highway planning of the recent past provides an
excellent example of the failure of single purpose
planning. Planners have routed highways through parks--
where land is invaluable for recreation but cheap for
roadbuilding. They have carved up low income districts
with commuter access roads. They have poured additional
highway lanes into cities unable to cope with more
automobile traffic and air pollution. And they have sited
major interchanges without regard to the unplanned and
often unanticipated growth centers which they generate.
Fourth, many municipalities have land use plans but have
failed to provide for their implementation. Throughout the
country, in the smallest towns and the largest cities,
plans lay collecting dust--mute testimony to the inability
of planning alone to achieve land use goals.
vii
Let me give you an example of these shortcomings. A
short time ago I received a detailed and elaborate
brochure from a small community near Los Angeles which had
acquired a large tract of cleared, undeveloped land. This
suburb had devised a plan for the development of its new
land. It designed the tract to be a congenial mix of
houses, parks, lakes, schools and light industry. The new
community promised to be very pleasant indeed.
Upon more careful analysis, however, I noted that there
was no provision within the plan for disposal of solid
waste, or for waste treatment facilities.
Consequently, all of the increased burdens generated by
the growth of the new community would fall on existing
facilities beyond its bounds.
Some other community must provide a landfill site; or
perhaps some coastal town must tolerate the dumping of
wastes in its estuary or off its beaches. Neighboring
municipal treatment plants must bear an increased burden
until the growing new community realizes the need for its
own facility.
In a similar way, the new city would produce an
increased localized demand for electric power, which must
be generated elsewhere. Provision of water for the new
community would mean renewed demands on the Colorado
River, or the Sacramento, or any of a number of already
hard-pressed sources.
Finally, the community plan had little provision for
population growth. With the light industry projected, the
number of housing lots will be just about adequate for the
present decade.
But what thought has been given to the next decade, or
the next after that?
This well-intended scheme does not, then, really
represent an adequate plan for land use. Its local design
was impeccable. But it failed to consider the broader
impact to its own development on neighboring communities,
neighboring States, and the Nation as a whole. And it
failed to include a policy for its own future development.
viii
Perhaps, more than any other factor, the failure to
provide implementation of land use plans illustrates the
greatest weakness in our present land use practices.
This failure has one cause: no level of government is
willing to accept the responsibility to plan
comprehensively and to put those plans into effect by
regulating the way private landowners use their land.
Courts never have to concern themselves with
comprehensive planning in the nuisance and trespass cases
which they decide.
States abdicated their responsibilities for this task
when they delegated their powers to municipalities.
And cities avoid the problem by not planning on a
comprehensive level of failing to provide the necessary
implementation mechanisms.
ix
These kinds of responses are clearly inadequate.
Sobering statistics suggest that unless our land use
decisionmaking processes are vastly improved at all levels
of government, the United States will be faced with a
truly National land use crisis.
Over the next 30 years, the pressures upon our finite
land resources will result in the dedication of an
additional 18 million acres--28 thousand square miles--of
undeveloped land to urban use.
Urban sprawl will consume an area of land approximately
equal to all the urbanized land now within the 288
standard metropolitan statistical areas--the equivalent of
the total areas of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Each decade, new urban
growth will absorb an area greater than the entire State
of New Jersey.
The equivalent of 2\1/2\ times the housing in the
Oakland-San Francisco metropolitan region must be built
each year to meet the Nation's housing goals.
By 1990, according to estimates of the Department of
Transportation, an additional 18,000 miles of freeways and
expressways will be required within the boundaries of just
the urbanized areas--more than double the total mileage
existing in 1968.
Vast areas of land are required to meet plans for
industrial expansion. In the next 2 decades, the
electrical power industry alone will need 3 million acres
of new rights-of-way--and more than 140,000 acres of
potential prime industrial land for more than 200 new
major generating stations.
Not included here is the amount of land to be consumed
for mining for resources--rights-of-way for gas and oil
transmission--and land for second home and private home
and private recreational development.
Moreover, there is no way to measure the severe effects
and conflicts that will develop at the local, State and
national levels from this rapid depletion of our land
resources.
x
The enormity of these demands makes it mandatory that we
begin a new phase of land use management--a phase that
corrects failures of the present approach to land use
planning and its regulatory mechanisms.
We need policies and programs that treat land use as a
resource to be managed, and not a commodity to be
exploited.
Realizing this great need, some States have already
commenced such programs.
The State of Maine established the land use regulation
commission in 1969 to zone and control development in the
unorganized townships of the State, 49 percent of Maine's
total land area amounting to more than 10 million acres.
Coupled with the site selection permit program
administered by the State's board of environmental
protection, the land use regulations commission has
provided the people of Maine an opportunity to protect
their public property rights against private waste.
Likewise, California voters in 1972 approved a citizens'
initiative creating the California coastal zone
conservation commission with a carefully designed permit
program to regulate changes in land use on the California
coast.
Federal legislation concerning land use should encourage
and, if necessary, require States to adopt regulatory
programs similar to these. While the Federal Government
may not be the best administering authority for such
programs, Federal law should specify the criteria against
which land use decisions should be made at the State and
local level.
xi
I have proposed Federal criteria which the States should
consider, although policies may vary from one part of the
country to another.
These include:
Prohibition of public or private development which will
result in violation of emission or effluent limitation,
standards or other requirements of the Clean Air Act or
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Prohibition of residential, commercial, or industrial
development on flood plains.
A requirement that major residential developments
provide open space areas sufficient for recreation.
A requirement that utilities maximize multiple usages of
utility rights-of-way.
Restriction of industrial, residential, or commercial
development on agricultural land of high productivity.
Prohibition of industrial, residential, or commercial
development which will exceed the capacity of existing
systems for power and water supply, waste water collection
and treatment, solid waste disposal, and transportation.
xii
In addition to this, however, we need a national growth
policy and a Federal land use policy that would guide the
management of our land resources in conformity with the
national growth policy. This Nation, and the world,
continue to grow at exponential rates. If the present
population expands at its present rate, the world's
population in the year 2000 will be double the 1970
population. Furthermore, there appears to be little
possibility of leveling off global population growth
before the year 2000 because most of the prospective
parents of that year have already been born.
The demands of this population on the earth's resources
will undoubtedly produce serious social, economic,
political, and environmental conflicts here in America as
elsewhere. While we in America may take some satisfaction
in the stabilization of our population, we should
recognize that our own leveling off will only minimally
affect world population totals and the demands of that
population on world resources.
Despite the enormous efforts which will be required to
meet known demands, and the consequent strains on our
human activity, even this Nation has no present policy for
directing its growth either to avert such crises or to
mitigate the impact.
What we need and do not have is a national growth policy
to guide and effectuate economic development, population
control, housing distribution, the use of natural
resources, the protection of the environment, and the
location of government and private development. In short,
we must face the larger question of how large and in what
directions this Nation should grow.
All levels of government should begin to ask the
questions which they have postponed for so many years.
Where are we, and where are we headed? The answers will
necessitate consideration of major changes in life styles
and institutions. They will certainly necessitate changes
in our attitudes toward land and land ownership.
Rights of land ownership can no longer be treated as
absolute--rather they must be modified by society's larger
needs.
The lesson is obvious--and is dramatized by the energy
crisis. If finite resources are to serve the needs of more
and more people, this use must be planned to insure that
the available supply serves the best uses our common
wisdom can identify, and those uses must serve the
equities of a free society dedicated to the welfare of all
its citizens. And that will not just happen.
Liberal Party Dinner,
New York City
October 9, 1975.
Four years I spoke to you here about the need for a
liberal coalition to enlist a majority of Americans in a
drive for change.
I spoke in terms of votes in a Presidential election.
For the Presidency is the big apple of politics--without
it there can be little change.
We failed in 1972 to reach a majority consensus for
liberal change. And on the eve of 1976, we face the grim
possibility of failing again. For the liberal consensus
again remains unfinished.
How can that happen? After 7 years of a Republican
administration distinguished only by its failures, how
could the American electorate fail to vote for a new
liberal administration?
When we know what's right, how can so many Americans not
follow our leadership? How can so many Americans make the
wrong choice?
How can so many Americans miss the point?
The answer, I submit, is that we have missed the point.
For in the past decade, liberals have developed an
ideology and state of mind that is narrow, unimaginative,
and often irrelevant.
Contrast that with the state of liberalism during the
Great Depression, when we spoke with the people's voice.
We assumed the burden of uniting the poor and discontented
every race and ethnic background.
We held them together in a powerful liberal consensus.
In the first 100 days of the New Deal, we accomplished
some of the most fundamental changes ever to occur in
America.
We succeeded then because our proposals went directly to
what people wanted--jobs, controls on big business, rights
for workers, social security, freedom from fear.
Four decades ago, we had discovered the possibilities of
government action to better the lives of Americans. People
were excited by the possibilities, and they prospered as a
result.
But something has happened since then--and it's
basically happened to us.
People still are discontented. They still want change,
and it is still our responsibility to help them make
change a reality.
Yet when the average citizen turns to us for help, what
does he find?
Consider, for example, the 1972 National Platform of the
Democratic Party.
If you wanted to read it, it would take a while. It runs
about 50 pages, or nearly 15,000 words, and it reads like
the catalogue of virtually every problem that we liberals
think bothers the American people.
The Platform speaks knowledgeably about the Railway
Labor Act, capital gains taxes, funding for ethnic
studies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
new towns program, bilingual education, community-based
rehabilitation facilities, the Food for Peace Program, the
Protocol on Chemical Warfare, and literally hundreds of
other aspects of our incredibly complex national
government.
It was a wonderfully comprehensive and esoteric
document. It showed that we knew all about government, and
knew just what government programs needed change.
Yet the results of the election showed that the 1972
platform was irrelevant, for all practical purposes.
For in promising so much for so many, it was
meaningless. Nowhere in there was there any statement of
what those hundreds of changes would cost. How much, for
example would the new towns program cost? Would we need
higher taxes to pay for it? How many people really would
be helped?
Or, what about capital gains tax reform? Would it soak
just the rich? What about retired couples, supplementing
their social security check with a blue-chip stock
dividend? Would they be soaked, as well?
I'm not trying to say that we need a national effort to
write better party platforms. Obviously, there are better
ways to communicate with people.
But the Democratic Platform of 1972 represents to me the
culmination of years of liberal neglect--of allowing a
broadbased coalition to narrow--of progressively ignoring
the real fears and aspirations of people--and of assuming
we know best what the people need.
For all the fine details we mustered then, and can
muster today for political discussions, we still don't
deal with the real issues.
And what are the real issues? They're not as finely
detailed as the issues we discuss, but they can be found.
I read my mail, I talk with voters in the towns of
Maine, and I listen. I find everywhere people who can't
cite from the Federal Register but know what's wrong
anyway.
They work hard, but they are not so sure anymore--that
14 hour days in a lobster boat or the monotony of an
assembly line are worth the effort.
They feel victimized by the economy. Fuel oil is up 118
percent over 1969--bread, up 36 percent--hamburger, up 50
percent. Their jobs are in danger as layoffs continue.
Yet all around them they see special interests which
have escaped those troubles, if they are big and powerful
enough. Money and power buy access to government, whether
it's Lockheed or a firemen's union. And raising hell can
get access, if you're loud and organized.
They sense that things are getting worse, not better.
Crime went up in Maine last year. There are few hopeful
signs on the horizon. They don't feel secure in their
homes, on the street, or on the job.
And, most important, they don't believe that government
really cares about them. All they need is one encounter
with some government bureaucrat to confirm that. In Maine,
for example, it now takes a full year to process a social
security disability claim.
The people I hear in Maine, plainly, are demoralized and
alienated. People everywhere are demoralized.
Louis Harris stated recently that 67 percent of the
people feel that ``what you think doesn't count much
anymore,'' nearly double the 37 percent who felt that way
in 1966. Nearly the same response came to the statement
that ``the people running the country don't care what
happens to you.''
Seventy-two percent of the American people stated they
do not think they get their money's worth from their
taxes, up from 56 percent in 1969.
During the same period of time, people lost confidence
in literally every major institution, public and private.
The number of people who expressed great confidence in
doctors, down to 44 percent from 72 percent.
In higher education, down to 33 percent from 61 percent.
In the military, down to 29 percent from 62 percent.
In organized labor, down to 14 percent from 22 percent.
In Congress, down to 13 percent, from 42 percent.
In the Executive Branch, down to 13 percent, from 43
percent.
And in local government leaders in central cities, an
estimated 7 percent.
At the top of the list, people felt great confidence in
local trash collectors. The reason? Harris found that
people felt that at least they know whether or not they
take away the trash and keep the streets clean.
At the same time people were frustrated with government,
Harris found underneath a strong desire for new political
leaders who will level with them about problems and
solutions. They want leaders who will open up government,
and let them participate. They want leaders who are
committed to making government work as well as people
believe it can work.
A year from now, people will again choose their
leadership.
And the liberal task is to make sure that there is a
choice.
The Republican Party, predictably, will ignore its
failures and run against the Democratic Congress.
And what alternative will we offer? Another 1972
Platform that promises a new, improved program for every
problem?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support
national health insurance, when estimated costs range up
to $100 billion a year?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support
wholesale tax reforms to eliminate loopholes, when such
reforms in the past have only made the system more complex
and failed to relieve the burden on middle-income people?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support
massive aid to cities in financial trouble--New York,
especially--when their sentiments are to punish cities for
overspending?
Do we really expect a majority of Americans to support
government mandates for equal opportunities for women and
minorities, when it means losing hard-won seniority or the
busing of their children?
In other words, do we really expect a majority of
Americans to support more government programs--no matter
how worthy--at a time when confidence in government is at
an all-time low?
At this time, none of us could sincerely answer yes.
Common sense tells us that despite their support for an
active role for government, Americans want to see
fundamental change--change that can make them again
confident in government's ability to help make their lives
better.
And there's no good reason that liberals can't do just
that.
Why, for example, can't liberals propose fundamental
changes in the structure of the Executive Branch of the
Federal Government? The government published this year a
799-page manual just to explain its own structure. We have
an Executive Branch that has 11 cabinet departments and 36
independent agencies, each with its own budget,
bureaucracy and constituency.
We have a system of grants-in-aid that has over 1,000
different programs, each with its own requirements,
approach, and money. In the health field alone, there are
228 different Federal programs. It takes 10 different
agencies to administer those 228 programs.
There are 1,240 Federal advisory boards, committees,
commissions and councils, run by more than 4,000 Federal
employees.
Why can't liberals start backing away at the regulatory
bureaucracy where it keeps costs up and competition away?
Why do we tolerate regulatory agencies which stifle
innovation, restrict competition, bury businesses with
needless paperwork, and cost the American consumer
billions of dollars a year?
Much regulation of business is undoubtedly necessary.
But we now sit under a creaking regulatory structure--much
of it outmoded--much of it captive of the very interests
it regulates--often with too few resources to carry out
its useful functions.
Why can't we just sit down with those agencies and say:
Justify yourself. And you'd better make a good case.
Why can't liberals, for another example, talk about
fiscal responsibility and productivity without feeling
uncomfortable?
When Congress considered enactment of budget reform--
which gave us the resources and procedures to discipline
Federal spending and establish priorities--some of the
strongest opponents were liberals.
When there is talk of cutting costs, making civil
servants responsible for productivity, or just wondering
why our Federal budget is now almost $400 billion, you
simply don't find liberals involved in the discussion.
My basic question is this: Why can't liberals start
raising hell about a government so big, so complex, so
expensive, and so unresponsive that it's dragging down
every good program we've worked for?
Yet we stay away from that question like it was the
plague.
We're in a rut. We've accepted the status quo. We know
that government can do much to improve the lives of every
American. But that conviction has also led us to become
the defenders of government, no matter its mistakes.
Our emotional stake in government is so much that we
regard common sense criticism of government almost as a
personal attack.
We resist questioning the basic assumptions of the
structure and role of government, fearing the unknown,
that somehow we have more to lose than gain through
change.
Budget reform could mean cutting back spending on health
programs, but it could also mean fewer gold-plated weapon
systems.
Productivity standards could cost union support, but
they could help restore public confidence in the many
government workers who work hard.
Or regulatory reform could jeopardize health and safety
regulation, but it could also loosen the grip of special
interests on agencies.
Plainly, we cannot move forward without questioning such
basic assumptions, and running certain dangers.
The American people have already spoken: Government must
put its own house in order before it takes on new and
bigger responsibilities.
And as long as we shrink from offering an alternative to
a system of government people have lost confidence in, we
can expect to remain in a minority.
Our challenge this decade is to restore the faith of
Americans in the basic competence and purposes of
government. That can come only through the hard process of
reform.
We must adopt government reform as our first priority--
as an end in itself. We must recognize that an efficient
government--well-managed, cost-effective, equitable, and
responsible--is in itself a social good.
We must do this secure in the conviction that first
priority on efficient government is not a retract from
social goals, but simply a realization that without it,
those goals are meaningless.
There is no good reason why we can't provide that
alternative.
We have a legacy 4 decades old of enlarging the personal
vision of every American. It is a legacy of success of
government helping to create the opportunities for the
good life for Americans. It has brought meaning and hope
to countless millions in this Nation.
We also have an unfinished agenda for America. It
includes dignity for the worker, for the poor and
elderly--clean air and water--free access to the political
process--an educational system open to all--a just legal
system--fair taxation--and economic fair play--an agenda,
in other words, of a Nation strong, confident and
compassionate.
And finally, we have an unfinished consensus. It is a
consensus for liberal change in America. It remains for us
to restore confidence in government, and then to tap again
the great moral potential of the American people for
common sacrifice and sharing.
We have, in other words, a winning hand. Let's not fold
it.
Remarks by Senator Edmund S. Muskie
Cape Elizabeth, ME
November 2, 1970.
Fellow Americans, I am speaking from Cape Elizabeth,
ME--to discuss with you the election campaign which is
coming to a close.
In the heat of our campaigns, we have all become
accustomed to a little anger and exaggeration.
Yet--on the whole--our political process has served us
well--presenting for your judgment a range of answers to
the country's problems, and a choice between men who seek
the honor of public service.
That is our system.
It has worked for almost 200 years--longer than any
other political system in the world.
And it still works.
But in these elections of 1970, something has gone
wrong.
There has been name-calling and deception of almost
unprecedented volume.
Honorable men have been slandered.
Faithful servants of the country have had their motives
questioned and their patriotism doubted.
This attack is not simply the overzealousness of a few
local leaders.
It has been led, inspired, and guided from the highest
offices in the land.
The danger from this assault is not that a few more
Democrats might be defeated--the country can survive that.
The true danger is that the American people will have
been deprived of that public debate--that opportunity for
fair judgment--which is the heartbeat of the democratic
process.
And that is something the country cannot afford.
Let me try to bring some clarity to this deliberate
confusion.
Let me begin with those issues of law and order, of
violence and unrest, which have pervaded the rhetoric of
this campaign.
I believe that any person who violates the law should be
apprehended, prosecuted, and punished, if found guilty.
So does every candidate for office of both parties.
And nearly all Americans agree.
I believe everyone has a right to feel secure, on the
streets of his city, and in the buildings where he works
or studies.
So does every candidate for office, of both parties.
And nearly all Americans agree.
Therefore, there is no issue of law and order, or of
violence.
There is only a problem.
There is no disagreement about what we want.
There are only different approaches to getting it.
And the harsh and uncomfortable fact is that no one--in
either party--has the final answer.
For 4 years, a conservative Republican has been Governor
of California.
Yet there is no more law and order in California today
than when he took office.
President Nixon--like President Johnson before him--has
taken a firm stand.
A Democratic Congress has passed sweeping legislation.
Yet America is no more orderly or lawful--nor its
streets more safe--than was the case 2 years ago, or 4, or
6.
We must deal with symptoms, strive to prevent crime,
halt violence, and punish the wrongdoer.
But we must also look for the deeper causes in the
structure of our society.
If one of your loved ones is sick, you do not think it
is soft or undisciplined of a doctor to try and discover
the agents of illness.
But you would soon discard a doctor who thought it
enough to stand by the bed and righteously curse the
disease.
Yet there are those who seek to turn our common distress
to partisan advantage--not by offering better solutions--
but with empty threat and malicious slander.
They imply that Democratic candidates for high office in
Texas and California, in Illinois and Tennessee, in Utah
and Maryland, and among my New England neighbors from
Vermont and Connecticut--men who have courageously pursued
their convictions in the service of the republic in war
and in peace--that these men actually favor violence and
champion the wrongdoer.
That is a lie.
And the American people know it is a lie.
And what are we to think when men in positions of public
trust openly declare that the party of Franklin Roosevelt
and Harry Truman which led us out of depression and to
victory over international barbarism; the party of John
Kennedy who was slain in the service of the country he
inspired; the party of Lyndon Johnson who withstood the
fury of countless demonstrations in order to pursue a
course he believed in; the party of Robert Kennedy,
murdered on the eve of his greatest triumphs; how dare
they tell us that this party is less devoted or less
courageous in maintaining American principles and values
than are they themselves.
This is nonsense.
And we all know it is nonsense.
And what contempt they must have for the decency and
sense of the American people to talk to them that way--and
to think they can make them believe.
There is not time tonight to analyze and expose the
torrent of falsehood and insinuation which has flooded
this unfortunate campaign.
There is a parallel--in the campaigns of the early
fifties--when the turbulent difficulties of the post-war
world were attributed to the softness and lack of
patriotism of a few, including some of our most respected
leaders, such as General George Marshall.
It was the same technique.
These attacks are dangerous in a more important sense--
for they keep us from dealing with our problems.
Names and threats will not end the shame of ghettos and
racial injustice, restore a degraded environment, or end a
long and bloody war.
Slogans and television commercials will not bring the
working man that assurance--of a constantly rising
standard of life--which was his only a few years ago, and
which has been cruelly snatched away.
No administration can be expected to solve the
difficulties of America in 2 years.
But we can fairly ask two things: That a start be made--
and that the Nation be instilled with a sense of forward
movement, of high purpose.
This has not been done.
Let us look, for example, at the effort to halt
inflation.
We all agree that inflation must be arrested.
This administration has decided it could keep prices
down by withdrawing money from the economy.
Now I do not think they will ever control inflation this
way.
But even if their policy was sound, the money had to
come from someone.
And who did they pick to pay?
It was the working man, the consumer, the middle class
American.
For example, high interest rates are a part of this
policy.
Yet they do not damage the banks which collect them.
They hardly touch the very wealthy who can deduct
interest payments from their taxes.
Rather they strike at every consumer who must pay
exorbitant charges on his new car or house. And they can
cripple the small businessman.
Their policy against inflation also requires that
unemployment go up.
Again, it is the working man who pays the price.
In other fields the story is the same.
They have cut back on health and education for the many,
while expanding subsidies and special favors for a few.
They call upon you--the working majority of Americans--
to support them while they oppose your interests.
They really believe that if they can make you afraid
enough, or angry enough, you can be tricked into voting
against yourself.
It is all part of the same contempt and tomorrow you can
show them the mistake they have made.
Our difficulties as a Nation are immense, confused and
changing.
But our history shows--and I think most of you suspect--
that if we are ever to restore progress it will be under
the leadership of the Democratic party.
Not that we are smarter or more expert--but we respect
the people.
We believe in the people.
And indeed we must--for we are of the people.
Today the air of my native Maine was touched with winter
and hunters filled the woods.
I have spent my life in this State which is both part of
our oldest traditions and a place of wild and almost
untouched forests.
It is rugged country, cold in the winters, but it is a
good place to live.
There are friends, and there are also places to be
alone--places where a man can walk all day and fish and
see nothing but woods and water.
We in Maine share many of the problems of America and, I
am sure, others are coming to us.
But we have had no riots or bombings and speakers are
not kept from talking.
This is not because I am Senator or because the Governor
is a Democrat.
Partly, of course, it is because we are a small State
with no huge cities, but partly it is because the people
here have a sense of place.
They are part of a community with common concerns and
problems and hopes for the future.
We cannot make America small.
But we can work to restore a sense of shared purpose,
and of great enterprise.
We can bring back the belief--not only in a better and
more noble future--but in our own power to make it so.
Our country is wounded and confused--but it is charged
with greatness and with the possibility of greatness.
We cannot realize that possibility if we are afraid or
if we consume our energies in hostility and accusation.
We must maintain justice--but we must also believe in
ourselves and each other--and we must get about the work
of the future.
There are only two kinds of politics.
They are not radical and reactionary or conservative and
liberal. Or even Democratic and Republican. There are only
the politics of fear and the politics of trust.
One says: You are encircled by monstrous dangers. Give
us power over your freedom so we may protect you.
The other says: The world is a baffling and hazardous
place, but it can be shaped to the will of men.
Ordinarily that division is not between parties, but
between men and ideas.
But this year the leaders of the Republican party have
intentionally made that line a party line.
They have confronted you with exactly that choice.
Thus--in voting for the Democratic party tomorrow--you
cast your vote for trust--not just in leaders or
policies--but for trusting your fellow citizens in the
ancient traditions of this home for freedom, and most of
all, for trust in yourself.
Remarks by Senator Edmund S. Muskie
on
S. 3708
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of
1966
August 1966.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, throughout history cities
have been mainsprings of social and economic growth. Men
gathered in them for common protection, for trade, for
industry, for the exchange of ideas, for social
intercourse, and for the comforts and attractions urban
life could offer.
Men have been drawn to cities as if by magnets. Cities
have drawn on the power and imagination of their people to
create states, nations and even civilizations. However
much we may feel drawn to rural scenes and quiet places,
we still return to the cities and towns for our business,
for government and for the fruits of learning and the
arts.
In a real sense cities are creators of life--and at the
same time they can be destroyers of lives. The pages of
history are full of the tales of those who sought the
promise of the city and found only despair. From the book
of Job, to Charles Dickens, to James Baldwin, we have read
the ills of the cities.
Our cities contain within themselves the flowers of
man's genius and the nettles of his failures.
We are all familiar with the photographs of our Capitol,
with slums blocking the foreground. We know of the
explosive forces rumbling, and sometimes bursting, out of
the crowded slums not far from the glitter of broadway,
the soaring new buildings of Chicago or the palm lined
streets of Los Angeles.
We also know of the ``other side of the tracks'' in
smaller cities, where unemployment comes first and
prosperity arrives last.
It is in the slum and blighted areas of our cities that
unemployment rates soar to almost 10 percent; it is in the
decayed neighborhoods that almost 70 percent of the poor
live in dilapidated, overcrowded, or unsafe and unsanitary
dwellings; it is in these areas of unrest that public
welfare payments are concentrated--24 percent of the
population of Watts, for example, was on public assistance
at the time of the riots; it is in these areas of stifled
opportunity that below average school buildings and
teaching are concentrated; it is in these areas of bleak
ugliness that recreational facilities are most limited;
and it is in these areas that disease, ill health and
crime are most prevalent.
For example, a study by the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare states that in one city, compared
with a control ``good area,'' the substandard area
required police charges 2\1/2\ times as high, ambulance
runs and fire calls almost twice as high, welfare costs 14
times as high. In another city, the poor housing area
produced 36 percent of the city's juvenile delinquency and
76 percent of the city's tuberculosis cases.
Whatever its size, wherever its location in this land of
ours, the city is a problem which grows as our Nation
grows, a problem which belongs to all of us, a problem
which all of us must join in solving.
We are, increasingly, a Nation of urban dwellers. At
present 70 percent of our population lives in metropolitan
areas. By 2,000 the proportion will probably reach 80
percent.
The two major phenomena of this urban growth are
crowded, decaying and blighted areas and the surrounding,
too often formless, suburban sprawl. The result is poor
housing, inadequate public facilities, limited education
and job opportunities, disease and ill-health, excessive
dependence on welfare payments and the threats of crime
and delinquency for those crowded into the slums and
blighted areas. The more affluent members of society, who
still use the city for business and entertainment, but who
have used modern transportation to escape the problems of
living in the city, now battle traffic problems, suffer
through smog, recoil at riots in the slums and feel more
uneasy over the dangers of urban life.
Too often, for the poor, for those of modest means, and
for the rich, our cities have become nightmares rather
than dreams.
Our awareness of the problems of the city is not new.
In 1902 my hometown--Waterville, ME--celebrated its
centennial. This was an age of universal optimism in that
bright period before the first of the world wars.
President William H.P. Faunce of Brown University noted in
a sermon at the centennial religious mass meeting, June
22, 1902, that ``the century which has elapsed since the
founding of Waterville has been justly called `The
Wonderful Century.' '' Men have discovered more facts and
invented more mechanisms in the last 100 years than in all
preceding history. But the greatness of our apparatus
ought to mean greatness of intelligent and character. The
difference between the old hand-loom and the modern loom
is enormous; is the difference as great between the man
who stood behind the former and the man who stands behind
the latter? What is the use of the incandescent light if
it does not enable the citizen to see his duty? What is
the advantage of traveling at 60 miles an hour if we are
as discontented at the end of the journey as at the
beginning? The aim of our civilization is not to whiten
the seas with the sails of commerce, but to develop
simply, homely virtues which are the chief defense of our
Nation, the best safeguards of the fireside and the home.
Reverend Faunce's remarks were true 64 years ago, and
they are even more pertinent today. He spoke almost a year
and a half before the Wright Brothers made their first
successful flight at Kitty Hawk. In the brief span of time
between his address and our day we have increased man's
speed from 60 miles an hour on land to 18,000 miles an
hour in space. The goals which he set for American society
are relevant to our own time. He called on the citizens of
Waterville to ``develop a new sense of civic pride and
municipal duty.'' He notes that ``Americans have succeeded
nobly in founding States, but they have not yet learned to
govern cities.''
Since Reverend Faunce delivered his sermon we have
labored to improve the lot of our cities. Our major
efforts go back more than 30 years. During this time
Federal, State and local governments have worked together
in the search for solutions to urban problems. Planning
aids, urban renewal, public housing, aids to education,
hospital construction, community facilities construction,
public welfare assistance, employment assistance,
transportation loans and grants--all these and many more
programs have been approved by the Congress.
These programs have accomplished a great deal--but they
have fallen far short of the need.
One reason is that every program of Federal aid to the
cities has approached a single problem with a single
weapon. They have operated side by side--frequently
indifferent to each other, sometimes even in conflict with
each other.
A city might have urban renewal without adequate low-
and middle-income housing, public housing and an
inadequate public health program, a welfare program but
little vocational training, a recreation program, and
inadequate schools. Repeatedly, neglect of one area
canceled out efforts in another.
A second shortcoming has been that even where all
existing Federal aids have been available to a city, there
has been no systematic arrangement for coordinating their
impact--cities could be lost in a maze of Federal aids.
There have been no local plans broad enough to make
effective use of combined aid programs.
There has been no focal point for concentrating their
resources on the problems of a neighborhood.
There has been little incentive for coordinated use of
Federal programs.
Finally, present programs are simply insufficient in two
ways:
They are not adequate to meet the growing needs of
growing urban populations.
They are not designed to meet all the needs that the
neglected neighborhoods display.
Compounding these difficulties has been the financial
crisis of the cities. Between 1954 and 1963,
municipalities increased their tax revenues by 43 percent,
and local government indebtedness increased by 119
percent. For the central city the problem has become a
vicious circle. The more determined the city's effort to
raise funds to meet the need for increased services, the
more likely that effort drives its economically affluent
citizens to the nearby suburbs. Similarly, the greater
burden the city places on industry within its borders, the
less its opportunity to attract and hold the industry and
commerce its economy requires. So the city becomes,
increasingly, a home for the economically deprived, those
least able to bear the cost of municipal services. It is
not surprising that the cities with the greatest slum
problems often have the least capacity to deal with those
problems.
Conflicts in program goals, divisions of authority, lack
of resources, major program gaps--all prevent us from
building and rebuilding cities our urban citizens deserve
and all of us need.
Recognizing these human problems of urban life,
President Johnson named a task force of distinguished
Americans, working with Secretary Weaver, to study these
problems, analyze the shortcomings of existing Federal
programs, and recommend to him a program for immediate
action.
The result was the Demonstration Cities Program.
The essentials of the program the President transmitted
to the Congress on January 26, 1966 were these:
The concentration of available and special resources in
sufficient magnitude to demonstrate swiftly what qualified
urban communities can do and can become.
The coordination of all available talent and aid on
these targets in a way which is impossible where
assistance is provided across the board and men and money
must be spread thin.
The mobilization of local leadership and initiative to
assure that the key decisions as to the future of American
cities are made by the citizens who live there and to
commit local leadership both public and private to a
comprehensive attack on urban problems, freed from the
constraints that have handicapped past efforts and
inflated their costs.
In his message to the Congress, the President said:
``Today, I have placed before the Congress and before
you, the people of America, a new way of answering an
ancient dream. That dream is of cities of promise, cities
of hope, where it could truly be said, to every man his
chance, to every man, regardless of his birth, his shining
golden opportunity, to every man the right to live and to
work and to be himself and to become whatever thing his
manhood and his vision can combine to make him.
The new way of answering that ancient dream is this:
To rebuild where there is hopeless blight;
To renew where there is decay and ugliness;
To refresh the spirit of men and women that are growing
weary with jobless anxiety;
To restore old communities and to bring forth new ones
where children will be proud to say, ``this is my home.''
What I have offered is a massive program, involving
everything that we know about building homes and schools
and parks and streets that are safe from fear.''
The choice facing the Nation was posed by President
Johnson in that special message:
``Shall we make our cities livable for ourselves and our
posterity? Or shall we by timidity and neglect damn them
to fester and decay?''
The Housing Subcommittee and the Banking and Currency
Committee have voted to accept the challenge, to make a
new beginning in our campaign to improve the quality of
life for all our citizens.
The legislation we present today is designed to meet the
President's objectives and to achieve the American dream--
for the child whose playground is a trash-strewn alley--
for the young boy or girl whose class room is a rat-
infested cellar--for the parent whose income is uncertain
and whose housing choice is an overcrowded tenement room
or the street--for the young man who cannot get a job
because he lacks training and cannot get training because
he lacks funds--for the man or woman who cannot find
decent housing because of the color of his or her skin.
The legislation we present today places the central city
in the context of the entire metropolitan area, and it
addresses itself to the problems of metropolitan regions.
It requires better coordination of Federal activities, and
it provides incentives for coordinated metropolitan area
planning and development.
Finally, the legislation we present today will help the
States to provide technical assistance to local
communities in making better use of Federal assistance
programs.
As I have indicated, S. 3708 is based on recommendations
made to the Congress by President Johnson. The
subcommittee on Housing made substantial changes in the
draft legislation submitted by the administration, but it
did not depart from the President's intent.
Mr. President, as reported by the Banking and Currency
Committee, S. 3708 has three titles--title I:
Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs; title II:
Planned Metropolitan Development; and title III: Urban
Information and Technical Assistance Services.
All three titles have a consistent purpose of providing
additional Federal assistance to help cities and
metropolitan areas make effective use of existing Federal
programs in order to make more significant progress toward
the accomplishment of the national housing policy of a
decent home and a suitable living environment for every
American family. This would be done by the bill in two
ways: (1) better coordination of existing programs--
Federal, State, and local; and (2) additional Federal
financial assistance to be used by the locality for
activities which supplement existing programs.
Title I of the bill would establish a new city
demonstration program of Federal grants and technical
assistance to help provide the incentive and the financial
means for a city to plan and carry out a program for
rebuilding and restoring entire sections or neighborhoods
of slum and blight and to improve the general welfare of
the people in such areas.
The demonstration city approach places maximum
dependence upon the locality and its officials to plan and
carry out the program. The Federal Government will help
with technical and financial assistance, but it will be
limited to those cities presenting imaginative and
effective ways of dealing with the physical and social
problems of slum and blighted areas.
The financial assistance will be in two forms--planning
assistance and program assistance. Planning assistance
will be on an 80 percent Federal grant basis with the city
making up the other 20 percent of cost. For this purpose
the bill authorizes an appropriation of $12 million a year
for each of 2 years, fiscal years 1967 and 1968.
The program assistance would provide supplementary
financial aid to cities to carry out activities in
addition to those already provided under existing Federal
law. The supplementary aid will be computed in each case
on a formula related to local contributions to Federal
programs involved in the project. Under the committee bill
the program assistance for any project would be a maximum
of 80 percent of the total non-Federal contributions made
on all projects under existing Federal law which are being
carried out as part of the city demonstration program. The
supplemental grant could not be used to reduce local
expenditures on existing projects or activities or to
reduce the local effort for similar activities. The bill
calls for a 2-year authorization of $400 million for
fiscal 1968 and $500 million for fiscal 1969. The 2-year
authorization is consistent with administration estimates
per a 5-year program.
Under this title, the urban renewal grant authority
would be increased by $250 million to be used for projects
included within a city demonstration program.
Title II calls for improved coordination of Federal
activities in metropolitan areas, requires minimum
standards of planning and coordination by local
governments in such areas, and authorizes supplementary
Federal grants to State and local public bodies for
metropolitan development projects as incentives for
adequate metropolitanwide comprehensive planning and
adherence to such planning. The supplementary grant would
be authorized only for those metropolitan areas which have
met standards for comprehensive planning on a
metropolitanwide basis. The grant would be made to the
public body sponsoring the metropolitan development
project. It would amount to a maximum of 20 percent of the
cost of the project. In no case could the total grant (the
basic grant plus the supplementary grant) exceed 80
percent of the project cost nor could the supplementary
grant exceed the basic grant.
The benefits of this title are for projects in a
standard metropolitan statistical area, which is defined
by the bureau of the budget as the area in and around a
city of 50,000 population or more. The projects to be
benefited are generally of a public works nature but are
listed in detail in the bill. The authorization under the
bill is a maximum of $25 million for fiscal year 1967 and
$50 million for fiscal year 1968.
Title III of the bill is designed to help local
communities make better use of Federal urban assistance
programs by authorizing Federal grants to States and
metropolitan area agencies to help finance information
centers to serve metropolitan areas and small communities
throughout the State. The grant could not exceed 50
percent of the cost of the activity. The bill authorizes
an appropriation not to exceed $5 million for fiscal year
1967 and $10 million for fiscal year 1968.
Inaugural Address of Edmund S. Muskie
Governor of Maine to the Ninety-Eighth Legislature
State of Maine
January 3, 1957.
address
Mr. President and Members of the 98th Legislature:
Someone much wiser than I has said: ``Law is the road-
map to happiness. It maps out the direction human acts
must take if they are to reach their proper goal. But maps
are the products of minds. They are a work of
intelligence, a work of reason. Before a man can exist
there must be a mind capable of recognizing destinations
and the road or roads that lead to them. So it is with the
map of human life. There must be a mind capable of
recognizing the true goals of human life and the roads
that lead to those goals. Law then is always a command or
a direction of reason ordering a human act to its proper
goal. The goal of all human acts is happiness.''
During the winter months which lie ahead of us, we shall
be fashioning a map for the guidance of our State in the
years to come. To that task we should summon all of the
intelligence which we can muster in order that we may
clearly recognize our proper destinations and firmly
direct our actions toward them.
In a democratic society, we consider that this work is
done most effectively if it is the product of government
working together with all citizens to achieve goals which
will serve the common good. In a very real sense, then,
the people of Maine will be working with us and through us
in these legislative days to develop a program which will
enable us to step forward with confidence on the right
road to a brighter future.
Conscious of the responsibility which this imposes upon
us, I have listened long and carefully to the advice and
suggestions of many citizens, groups, and public officials
who have concerned themselves with the improvement of our
State. Thus equipped, I have tried to pinpoint the
destinations toward which we should move and the means we
should immediately adopt to get us there. I shall submit
the conclusions which I have reached in these respects to
you in this inaugural message and in the budget message
which will be delivered next week. It will be your
responsibility, of course, to test my conclusions in the
light of your own evaluation of public opinion and of the
part which State government should play in shaping the
Maine of tomorrow.
As I see them, our destinations or objectives have not
changed in the past 2 years. They have been affirmed and
reaffirmed to the point that there is virtually universal
agreement among us as to their nature and importance.
We agree that State government has a proper function, in
partnership with private initiative and enterprise, in
stimulating the pace of economic activity within the State
to the end that our people may realize to the maximum the
fruits of their labors. We recognize that our success in
this respect is basic to the expansion of our capacity to
provide needed services.
We agree that the conservation and intelligent use of
our natural resources calls for enlightened measures
designed to preserve them for the long years and the
generations ahead.
We agree that the State's future, as well as that of our
young people, depends upon our equipping them, by
education and training, to realize to the full their
potential in material, intellectual, and spiritual
satisfactions.
We agree that the unfortunate among us,
institutionalized and otherwise, who, because of economic,
physical, moral, or mental disabilities, can not advance
themselves out of their own resources, have a legitimate
claim upon our compassion.
We agree that the machinery of government should be so
designed and organized as to be readily responsive to the
will of our people and to render the services required of
it efficiently, effectively, and economically.
We realize that the attainment of each of these
objectives is vital to the attainment of all of them; and
that we must constantly make progress toward each if, in
the long run, we wish to assure continued progress toward
all.
In the past 2 years, we have taken important steps
toward these objectives and we have made responsible and
constructive analyses of the next steps we should take.
Our immediate task is to apply the conclusions which have
been indicated in such a way as to assure the maximum
advances possible within the limits of our resources
without neglecting any of the objectives just described.
As differences of opinion are disclosed--and they will
be--they can be resolved if we will bear in mind that we
are in agreement as to where we want to go, and that each
of us honestly wishes to get there by the most effective
and practicable means possible.
economic development
One of the first subjects which should engage our
attention is that of economic development.
Beginning with the creation of the Department of
Development of Industry and Commerce, we have been in the
process of reorganizing our efforts and equipping
ourselves with new tools in this field. Our purposes have
been as follows:
1. To mobilize a substantial, hard-hitting force of
salesmen for Maine, consisting of an expanded core of
trained technicians and leaders on the State level working
with organized groups of determined and persevering
citizens on the community level.
2. The evaluation of our resources in every area of the
State in order to direct our efforts most productively
toward those industries whose needs we can hope to meet.
The new Division of Research and Planning has assumed the
leadership in this phase of the work and, despite its
limitations in manpower, has made an effective beginning
in stimulating local and regional planning, and in the
compilation of data basic to a comprehensive knowledge of
our assets. Working under similar limitations, the Geology
Division is charting the exploration of our mineral
resources.
3. The development of ``leads'' to industrial prospects
by direct selling and by use of the various media and
channels available to the Division of Public Relations.
4. Continuing, and unflagging promotion of our vacation-
land resources and of the products of the soil and sea,
all of which should be increasingly identified with Maine
and quality across the country.
The results to date can be described as encouraging
beginnings, sufficient to stimulate our greater efforts in
the same directions, but insufficient for any measure of
complacency and self-satisfaction. We have had, and will
continue to have, our set-backs; but there is no reason,
short of a reversal of national economic trends, why we
should not make substantial and steady progress.
You will be asked to consider the following
recommendations designed to strengthen our program:
1. Provision for additional personnel in the Divisions
of Development, Research and Planning, and Geology. The
work in the latter two divisions, particularly, is
handicapped by manpower limitations. Research,
exploration, and intelligent planning are vital to a state
searching for productive areas for industrial growth; and
our rate of progress, long-range, will be influenced
greatly by what we do today and tomorrow in these fields.
This recommendation is designed to increase our ability to
serve the needs of existing industries as well as to
attract new ones.
2. Appropriation of State and funds to match Federal and
local funds for the purpose of encouraging and
implementing local and regional planning.
3. Use of the State's credit to attract risk capital for
construction of new industrial buildings.
This proposal merits some detailed discussion. Briefly,
it is based upon the following assumptions:
a. That many areas of the State, otherwise potentially
attractive to new industries, lack available industrial
space and the resources to provide the equity capital
necessary to finance its construction;
b. That, under current conditions nationally, capital
for this purpose is in short supply and, consequently,
becomes selective and gravitates toward only the best
loans;
c. That the availability of suitable industrial space
or the necessary risk capital to build it will often be
the determining factor in attracting a new industry suited
to the economy of a particular community or area in the
State; and
d. That use of the State's credit will offset the
absence of local equity capital and greatly reduce, or
even eliminate the risk, on industrial development loans
to such effect as to attract risk capital.
The proposal, based on these assumptions, is that an
appropriate state agency, backed by the state's credit,
insure mortgages on industrial properties. Further details
will be spelled out in the legislation to be submitted.
However, it might be well to point out that the proposal
does not provide for gifts or subsidies to new industries.
It is a way for us to place our full faith and credit as a
State behind our belief in Maine's economic possibilities,
and, as such, merits your serious attention.
This proposal is not intended to slight the valuable
contribution made by the Maine Development Credit
Corporation in this field. Without the use of the state's
credit, that agency has performed an eminently useful
service. On the other hand, there is need for the greatly
expanded credit resources which the new proposal should
provide.
No discussion of economic development in Maine would be
complete without reference to our coast-line and the work
of the Maine Port Authority. We have some of the finest
natural harbors on the Atlantic sea-board. The Federal
Government has spent and is spending millions of dollars
on dredging so that these ports can be used by the most
modern ships. Private capital has spent large sums in
developing port facilities. The Maine Port Authority has
demonstrated that waterborne commerce can be increased
with an active port solicitation and promotion program. I
unhesitatingly recommend the expansion of this program. I
recommend further the appropriation of the funds necessary
to rehabilitate the Maine State Pier--a project which is
essential if this valuable state property is to remain
operational.
natural resources
The intelligent utilization and conservation of our
natural resources are as much a part of our economic
development program as are the essentially promotional
activities which I have just discussed. As a matter of
fact, unless they are carefully husbanded to assure a
continuing supply of the products which they yield, there
is little sense to talk of an expanded industrial base.
1. Forests: Probably our greatest natural resource is
our forests. Their importance is highlighted by the fact
that industries using wood employ about one-third of our
people. The extent of our supply is indicated by the fact
that we have the largest amount of commercial forest land
per capita in the country. In industry, in recreation, for
water storage, they are an indispensable, yet often taken-
for-granted, asset which can be wasted overnight, but
replenished only with the passage of years. We must
continue and strengthen our programs to protect them from
fire, insects, disease, and improper use.
Your attention is particularly called to the following
recommendations:
a. The need to improve forest practices on small wood-
lots, considered a major problem.
b. Expansion of the state forest nursery, particularly
in cooperation with the Federal Soil Bank Nursery Program,
which aims at production of 10 million trees per year to
be used on soil bank acreage.
c. Completion of the aerial survey of our forest
lands, considered important as a basis to determine
policies of expansion, or new uses and locations for
industries using wood.
2. Agriculture: A healthy agriculture is essential to
the vitality of hundreds of communities in our State and
to the prosperity of our whole economy. The number of our
farms has been dwindling at an alarming rate. This trend
has been influenced, of course, by market conditions
nationally or regionally which are beyond the control of a
single state. At the same time, we should not overlook
possible improvements of those services which can
contribute to the well-being of our farm economy.
One of the brightest spots in the farm picture in Maine
is the poultry industry which has experienced a tremendous
growth. The incidence of poultry disease in our flocks has
inevitably increased in proportion to the number of
poultry on our farms. The investigation, control, and
eradication of these diseases is properly a function of
State government; and our services in this connection,
both in the department and at the University of Maine,
should be expanded commensurate with the needs of this
growing industry.
We are requested to assume one half the costs of
maintaining a Federal-State Market News Office in Presque
Isle. This office is the only source of impartial and
accurate daily market information for Maine potato
producers and shippers, and is an invaluable aid to
intelligent marketing of the Maine potato crop. I
recommend that we assume these costs.
You will be asked to consider again the advisability of
continuing milk price controls. All are agreed that we
need policies which will expand the market for milk
produced on Maine farms at prices which will bring a fair
return to the producer. There is disagreement as to what
these policies should be. There is merit to the suggestion
that elimination of retail price controls, or, at the very
least, more liberal resale pricing policies, will
accomplish the results desired.
The marketing and promotional efforts of several
segments of Maine agriculture have been stepped up in
recent years. Illustrative is the work of the Maine Dairy
Council Committee and the Maine Potato Commission which
operate with the proceeds of special industry taxes. It is
understood that the poultry industry is considering a
similar program. Our policy should be to cooperate with
the indicated wishes of the industry in each instance,
and, once such a program is enacted into law, to safeguard
its sources of revenue. These are constructive and
productive efforts and should be encouraged.
3. Inland Fisheries and Game: Our incomparable lakes,
streams, and forests constitute the habitat for a
profusion of fish and wild-life which serve as a major
attraction for our thousands of visitors as well as
wholesome recreation and sport for our citizens. It is the
responsibility of the department to so manage these
resources as to insure a continuing annual harvest of fish
and game, sufficient to maintain and, if possible, raise
the level of returns to the sportsman. This task is made
more difficult by the growth in population nationwide, the
increasing number of those who wish to fish and hunt, the
decentralization of industry, and factors tending to
reduce the extent of land and water areas which will
support the production of fish and game.
We must, therefore, constantly review our efforts and
redirect them as new practices and programs are indicated.
In this connection it is suggested that you study methods
which could materially reduce the numbers of special laws
now on the books, giving due consideration, of course, to
the dictates of sound conservation.
It is suggested, also, that you consider giving the
department more specific authority over dams, fishways,
screens, and water level controls. It is felt that
obstructions in our streams, unless removed or by-passed,
are a serious detriment to any program designed to
encourage the natural reproduction of fish.
4. Sea and Shore Fisheries: It is estimated that our
commercial fishing industry produces nearly 300,000,000
pounds of seafood products valued at $75,000,000. These
figures establish it as an important segment of the
State's economy calling for wise management to insure its
source of supply.
The department's activities consist of enforcement,
research, and promotion. Its program should be
strengthened as follows:
a. Intensification of the seed lobster program with
appropriation of sufficient funds to stimulate the
impounding of female lobsters.
b. Utilization of the laboratory facilities at
Boothbay Harbor to study lobster diseases and to develop
methods of reducing the adverse influences of these
diseases on the industry.
c. A resumption of scallop research to develop life
history studies and techniques to predict scallop
abundance.
d. Continuation of the program to survey closed clam
areas for the purpose of salvaging shellfish from these
areas; and the addition of a program to carry on
bacteriological surveys of open areas in order that the
public's health may be more adequately safeguard and to
meet the requirements of the U.S. Public Health Service.
5. Water Resources: The pollution of these clam flats is
a part of the broader problem of water pollution which
touches almost every area of the State, and which must
find a solution within reasonable time limits if we are to
derive maximum benefits from our water resources.
Surely it is beyond argument that an abundant supply of
clean water is essential to our industrial growth, to meet
our domestic needs, to encourage the natural reproduction
of fish in our streams, and to our coastal economy. We are
relatively favored as among the 48 States in our
possession of this resource, but we should improve our
position as rapidly as we can.
This imposes responsibilities upon industry and upon our
communities. Each must make progress to the maximum extent
possible in the light of technological advances and
reasonable financial requirements. We cannot afford to be
rigid, nor can we afford to be lax.
We must really face up to these alternatives in this
session of the Legislature. The Water Improvement
Commission reports that approximately 15,000 miles of
streams will have been studied, covered in public
hearings, and prepared for submission to you in its
recommendations for classification. If you should adopt
these recommendations, the extension of classification
then authorized will present problems to nearly every
community. Thus, you will be confronted with a sobering
responsibility.
With respect to the community problem, the Congress of
the United States has enacted legislation appropriating
funds to assist municipalities in the construction of
sewage treatment works. Under the Act grants are limited
to 30 percent of the estimated cost of the works or
$250,000, whichever is the smaller. Maine's allotment for
the current fiscal year is $627,125. In addition, we are
allotted $19,331 in the current fiscal year to assist us
in meeting the costs of our program for pollution control.
Each project seeking to qualify for the federal funds must
be approved by the Water Improvement Commission and must
be part of a comprehensive State water pollution control
plan.
I recommend that we participate in the federal program
and that we supplement the federal funds available to
municipalities by the appropriation of State matching
funds to the extent of two-thirds of the federal grant.
An alternative to this proposal has been suggested. It
would provide a revolving fund from which municipalities
could borrow, interest free, funds necessary to construct,
not only sewage treatment plants, but also other sewage
works. This alternative has considerable merit but would
not appear to go as far toward solving the financial
problem of municipalities as the matching fund proposal.
I recommend further that the Commission be given the
necessary funds to provide consulting and planning
services for municipalities, and to employ the technical
and enforcement staff needed if the recommended
classifications are adopted.
Another suggestion of considerable merit has been
advanced. Briefly, it proposes that enabling legislation
be adopted providing for the creation of municipal sewage
districts under model charters spelled out in the law.
Implementation of this suggestion will require
considerable study and research, for which appropriate
provision should be made. Such legislation would provide a
more flexible and ready tool for financing municipal
sewage projects.
It is evident that financial and technological
limitations dictate caution in the imposition of time
limits for compliance if we are to avoid back-breaking
burdens upon municipalities and industries. At the same
time, let no one mistake our intention to bring this
problem under control.
Two other recommendations touching upon our water
resources, should be considered:
a. An adequate water supply is almost assumed in Maine
except during occasional extremely dry summer months. We
know that this supply and its management are important to
industry, to the generation of hydro-electric power, to
the control of pollution, to agriculture, to the breeding
and feeding of fish life, and to our domestic needs. To
obtain more of the facts bearing upon these two factors, I
recommend that we establish a ground waters survey program
to be conducted by the Department of Development of
Industry and Commerce in cooperation with the United
States Geological Survey.
b. The question of utility rates is one which,
biennially, for several years, has attracted widespread
public interest, and rightly so. They affect the household
budget of every citizen and the competitive position of
our industries.
It is clear that, whatever the rate statute may be,
utility companies must be provided with sufficient
revenues to perform their duty to the public, to operate
successfully, to maintain their financial integrity, and
to attract capital at a reasonable rate. To set a lower
standard than this would be to deprive ourselves of the
quality of service which we ought to have.
At the same time, the consumer has a right to expect
that the Public Utilities Commission has the authority to
fix minimum rates consistent with the foregoing. The
present rate statute imposes a formula upon the Commission
in its determination of the value of a utility's
investment requiring it to give consideration to the
``current value'' of its properties as opposed to its
actual investment. In times of inflation, this requirement
tends to permit a utility to obtain a return on money not
actually invested. Moreover, the Commission, which cannot
compete with private utilities in the recruitment of
trained technical staff, is confronted with the uncertain
and cumbersome administrative task of determining
reproduction cost and other factors which are matters of
opinion and not subject to exact, factual verification.
For these reasons, I recommend that the rate statute be
amended to provide an exact accounting rate base which
will give weight to the utility's prudent investment. I
firmly believe that the requirements of the utility and
the consumer's interest can both be safeguarded under such
a statute.
6. Parks: Over the past 4 years, visitor attendance at
all state and Federal parks and recreation areas in Maine
has increased by more than 30 percent. This is a
reflection of the great demand for outdoor recreation
facilities, which nature has equipped Maine to provide in
such abundance. The increasing visitor use, which we
welcome, is overcrowding our existing park facilities.
The expansion of our parks and recreation areas should
have the enthusiastic endorsement of all who are conscious
of the economic value of our vacationland resources. The
Maine State Park Commission has prepared a long-range
program for expansion which, in its basic outlines, should
be implemented as rapidly as available funds permit. As is
the case with other demands for capital funds, our
progress will depend upon our approach to the financial
problem involved. This problem will be discussed in the
budget message.
The State parks are showcases of Maine's physical
beauties and of our hospitality. In the same category
should be included various State memorials, the
improvement and maintenance of State buildings and grounds
here in Augusta, and restoration of a State museum. All of
them should receive our attention.
labor
Any balanced view of our responsibilities here this
winter requires that we give attention to the welfare of
the laboring men and women of the State. Their
contribution to our economic well-being is an
indispensable one and should be recognized by realistic
and enlightened legislation designed to insure their
equitable participation in the gains which we hope to
make.
I recommend the following:
1. A minimum wage law to supplement federal legislation,
and a fair labor relations law keyed to our requirements.
2. Extension of coverage and a more favorable benefit
schedule in the Employment Security and Workmen's
Compensation Laws, and the removal of certain inequities
governing disqualification in the Employment Security Law.
education
Up to this point, I have discussed our material
resources and what we must do to make them productive of a
better life for ourselves and our children. The
realization of what we hope to be as a State depends as
much upon what we do with our human resources.
One of the basic needs of a democratic society is
popular education. It has been said that, ``Only the full
light of learning could--liberate the human mind for self-
government.'' To those who believe this--and I take it
that includes all of us--higher educational standards in
our schools will equip those who follow after us to work
more effectively for that richer and more abundant life
which is our goal.
If we accept these conclusions, then we must be
concerned with the deficiencies of an educational system
which finds itself near the bottom of the ladder of
states. There is an explanation for our status in our
relatively sparse and scattered population and our
comparatively limited financial resources. We should not,
however, fall back upon these limitations as excuses for
exerting less than our maximum effort.
It is indeed encouraging that, over the past 2 years, an
unprecedented amount of attention has been given to our
educational problems. The conferences which were held in
connection with the White House Conference on Education,
the Jacobs report on school finances and needs, the survey
of State government by the Public Administration Service,
the Committee on Educational Television, plus the
continuing studies and planning of educators on every
level, have equipped us, as seldom before, to take
constructive steps to improve our educational standards.
The recommendations contained in the Jacobs report, if
implemented, will advance us toward sound objectives.
These objectives may be described as follows:
1. The determination and distribution of state school
aid on the basis of a foundation program of school
financing, the foundation program being defined as the
minimum educational program which the State seeks to
assure for all children, and in which the State will
participate financially. This minimum program may, of
course, be exceeded in municipalities according to their
initiative and resources. The recommended formula for
state aid will provide some state aid for all
municipalities, thus recognizing the principles of shared
taxes, and it will also continue the emphasis on the
principle of equalization.
2. The establishment of more effective minimum teachers'
salary schedules.
3. The establishment of a school district reorganization
commission to study the school conditions and needs in
each community, to determine specific plans for the
establishment of appropriate, larger school districts, and
to report its recommendations to the next session of the
legislature.
4. The provision of a financial incentive for proper
school district reorganization by an increase of 10
percent in state aid on the foundation formula for a
consolidated district.
5. The provision of state financial assistance on school
construction required in connection with proper school
district reorganization.
These objectives cannot all be achieved immediately, but
I recommend that they be adopted in principle and that the
necessary funds be appropriated to get us started toward
their realization.
The pressing need for an adequate supply of well
qualified teachers also commands our attention. The
teacher-training institutions constitute our principal
source of supply and it is necessary that we act to
improve the attractiveness of their educational programs
and physical plant. Their capacity should be increased
from an estimated 1,200 at present to 2,900 in the near
future.
The retention of our young people in the State, and the
extent of their contribution to its future, depend, in no
small degree, upon the quality and availability of
opportunities for higher education which we provide. We
are appreciative of the important role played so well by
our private institutions of learning. At the same time we
know that they are not likely to be in a position to
increase their enrollments in proportion to the
anticipated increase in the college age population. We
also know that we should increase the percentage of the
Maine college age group who go to college. These premises
dictate that we expand the capacity of the University of
Maine while maintaining, and, if possible, improving the
quality of its performance. Recent projections suggest
that its capacity should reach a low of 7,500, or, a high
of 12,000, by 1970.
As we consider the expansion of the University, we
should not ignore the requirements of the young people in
southwestern Maine, and the possibility of establishing
additional state university facilities in that area. There
is now under study the possible absorption by the
University of Maine of Portland Junior College. Such
recommendations as may be forthcoming from the trustees of
the two institutions will be deserving of our careful
consideration.
There is need for action to provide opportunities in
higher education which are not now available in Maine. As
a result of authorization 2 years ago, Maine is now a
member of the New England Higher Education Compact under
which has been established the New England Board of Higher
Education. The purpose of the Board is to increase such
educational opportunities through the establishment and
maintenance of a coordinated educational program. The
Board has concerned itself first with the problem of
medical and dental education, facing squarely the facts
that we use more doctors than the national average and
that we do not produce enough doctors from among our own
people to meet our needs.
The Board, therefore, proposes a plan whereby, in
accordance with a recommended formula, the member States
will under-write part of the difference between tuition-
income and the actual cost of instructing each New England
student in the region's medical schools. It is believed
that this plan will serve to ``Keep the present doors of
opportunity open and to encourage the opening of
additional doors for New England students.'' The plan
merits our support.
In addition to the foregoing, you will be asked to
consider recommendations, detailed in the budget, relative
to vocational education, vocational rehabilitation, the
Maine Vocational Technical Institute, the State Library,
and the Maine Maritime Academy.
health and welfare
We in America prize initiative, self-reliance, and the
ability to get ahead on our own two feet. We treasure, and
will fight, for the right to shape our own destinies as
individuals.
At the same time, we recognize that circumstances beyond
our control can reduce or destroy our capacity to do so;
and we instinctively act to protect and provide for those
who are thus incapacitated. Our programs in this respect,
because of our limited resources, do not and can not
provide a complete cushion against all the blows which
misfortune may strike. It is proper and humane,
nevertheless, to periodically review the needs and the
adequacy of our efforts to meet the most serious ones.
This approach to the problems of those who might be
deprived of the necessities of life without our
assistance, suggests the following minimum
recommendations:
1. In terms of number of recipients and the size of
average grants, the public assistance programs for the
aged, the blind, the disabled, and for dependent children
have had varying histories.
While the number of recipients in the programs for old
age assistance and aid to the blind continue to decline
steadily, caseloads in the aid to dependent children
program have expanded greatly and are continuing to
increase. The new program for aid to the disabled already
exceeds the aid to the blind program.
Over the past 10 years, these programs have been
liberalized and the size of the average grants increased,
by legislative and administrative action. Nevertheless,
the reduced purchasing power of the dollar has wiped out
most of the dollar gain in terms of the goods and services
the grants will purchase. I recommend, therefore, that the
grants of all recipients under these programs be increased
by 5 percent in order to restore some of this loss.
2. I recommend that the citizenship requirement in Old
Age Assistance be eliminated. Persons in this group now
receive public assistance, but the burden falls almost
wholly upon municipalities. If the requirement is
eliminated, the burden will be shared by federal funds.
3. There are at least 600 Old Age Assistance recipients
at all times in nursing homes, including convalescent
homes and rest homes; and it is felt that most old age
assistance recipients will have a period during their
lives when nursing home care is necessary. In varying
degrees, recipients under the aid to the blind, aid to the
disabled, and aid to dependent children programs also
require the services of such institutions.
The quality of the services in an appreciable number of
nursing homes is scaled to the level of grants under these
programs. For this and other reasons, as a survey of these
homes will disclose, there is need for substantial up-
grading in the quality of nursing home care. Indeed, it is
felt that this may well be the major need not now included
in our welfare program.
Consequently, I recommend that we adopt a program which
will meet a significant portion of the cost of nursing
home care, thus giving the department a basis on which it
can establish the standards of care for which payment will
be made.
The program would primarily provide needed care; but, in
addition, it will reduce the welfare burden of
municipalities, and should diminish, to some degree, the
load on the State Hospital Aid Program.
4. The program for board and care of neglected children
cries out for our attention. It covers some 2,100 children
who have been committed to the department because of gross
negligence on the part of the parents. Obviously, it is
our responsibility to provide better homes than those from
which they have been taken by the courts.
The children are placed in foster homes, and the
department pays $30 per month per child for their board
and care. In the light of present living costs, this
payment cannot be expected to provide the standard of care
which it is our obligation, by all humane considerations,
to provide. I recommend, therefore, that the payment be
increased.
5. Two years ago the hospital aid program was adapted to
purchase hospitalization for the recipients of the four
categories of assistance programs. Thus, federal funds
were claimed to supplement the state's appropriation.
The hospital aid pool thus created does not, of course,
serve the needs of the medically indigent who are not
recipients under those programs; and the aid to public and
private hospitals program was continued. Because of
increasing hospital costs, the appropriation for this
purpose should be increased.
6. The program of alcoholic rehabilitation, which has
expanded rapidly, has reached the limit of development
under present appropriations. I recommend that a program
of direct service by counseling, education, and some
clinic care be added.
institutions
The Public Administration Service, in its report on the
survey of State government, says of our mental health
program, ``No one wishes to see a person committed to a
state mental institution and remain there for life no
matter how fine the care he may receive there.'' I am sure
that any of us who have had relatives, friends, or
neighbors thus afflicted will agree wholeheartedly with
that observation.
The report continues: ``If only a few, percentage-wise,
can be returned to normal home life the monetary savings
to the state, not to mention the social and humanitarian
benefits, would be real and substantial.''
In these two sentences we have a statement of the
selfish and the unselfish reasons why we should provide at
our mental institutions, first, humane standards of
custodial care and, second, intensive treatment and
training programs designed to cure as many patients as the
advances of science will make possible.
In order to move toward these objectives, each
institution must have an increased complement of
professional personnel in various categories, including
medical, psychiatric, nursing and teaching, as well as an
adequate staff of custodial personnel. To attract these
people, it is more and more apparent that increased
compensation must be offered.
The long-range building programs at these institutions
must also be evaluated in terms of a treatment and
training program; and, not only must we blue-print the
kinds of plants needed, we must also do something about
building them.
At our mental institutions we should also formalize and
expand the work with respect to out-patient care; and this
work might well be coordinated with the community services
provided by the Department of Health and Welfare.
A comprehensive approach to the problem of mental
health, aimed at prevention, cure, and care, must go
beyond the institutional program. Suggestions designed to
improve our present program will be contained in the
budget; but, in this field, as in others, the organization
and coordination of our efforts along program lines would
enable us to achieve maximum results from the dollars
expended.
The correctional institutions also reveal program
deficiencies as well as, in some cases, security
deficiencies. New physical facilities and improvements in
the occupational, vocational, educational, religious, and
recreational aspects of their programs are required.
Our goal should be an integrated correctional system
aimed at prevention and the rehabilitation of those who
are committed as responsible citizens capable of assuming
positions in society commensurate with their abilities.
Any such system, of course, includes institutions of
maximum, medium, and minimum security. In addition, it
should include an effective program of probation and
parole, the first as a useful tool in salvaging offenders
who are not yet hardened criminals, and the second as a
tool used after imprisonment to ease the transition back
into society.
One of our shortcomings at the moment, in these terms,
is lack of a centralized and unified probation system,
staffed by full-time, professional personnel equipped, by
training and experience, to give proper guidance to those
committed to their custody and to provide competent
assistance to the courts.
Such a system, included as a part of our present parole
program, would provide an essential service as described,
and could also be useful in improving the present method
of processing pardon cases; and I recommend its
establishment. It might be pointed out that supervision
under an effective probation and parole system is much
less expensive, and can be productive of greater social
benefits, than institutional supervision.
survey of state government
I have now discussed what State government is doing and
ought to do with respect to maximum utilization of our
economic resources and our human resources. The
legislative agenda would not be complete if it did not
include, as well, items relating to the processes of
government.
This brings us to the report on the survey of State
government which was completed last June by the Public
Administration Service.
The report is based on the principle that the executive
branch of government would be a more effective instrument
of service to our people if the Governor were in fact the
center of executive authority and responsibility. The
report proposes that he be made just that, and that other
changes be adopted which will give him the time and the
tools to exercise that authority, to delegate it to
appropriate subordinates of his choosing, and to enforce
the responsibility for proper execution.
I believe that he should have such authority and
responsibility, whoever he may be and whatever his
political party, because he is elected by the people; and,
as their representative, he should be in a position to
direct whatever business is entrusted to the executive
branch of government by the Constitution and the
legislature. They should be able to hold him primarily
accountable for the ethics, loyalty, efficiency,
frugality, and responsiveness to the public wishes of the
thousands of employees in state service.
I believe that, if he is given such authority and
responsibility, the limitations of his time and energies
in the light of the many demands which are made upon them,
should be recognized; and he should be given such
assistance, and the executive branch should be so
organized, as to enable him to readily and constantly
observe and supervise the operations of State government.
I believe that the full realization of these objectives
requires the adoption of a 4-year term for the Governor,
the appointment of department heads by the Governor for
terms coincident with his own, elimination of the
executive council, a reduction in the number of plural
bodies which administer the day to day affairs of
departments, and consolidation of the 29 major operating
agencies and the more than 80 other agencies of State
government into a reasonable number of departments.
I believe that the Office of the Governor and the
executive branch of government will fall far short of
their maximum contribution to the cause of efficient,
effective, and economical government unless the foregoing
principles are implemented.
The survey report contains recommendations in these
respects and should be used as a guide. In addition, the
report ranges over the entire field of State government,
its organization, its operations, and its programs, making
recommendations and suggesting supplementary studies to
fully explore the possibilities for improvements. It
contains material which can serve as the basis for
constructive action, not only in this session of the
Legislature, but also in the years ahead.
I, therefore, suggest the following:
1. That you consider and act upon recommendations which
are submitted by the Citizens Committee on the Survey of
State Government.
2. That you authorize the continuation of the Committee
with funds to arrange for appropriate supplementary
studies and to draft legislation incorporating its
recommendations for submission to the next session of the
Legislature.
Over the past 2 years another problem affecting the
machinery of government has become cause for increasing
concern. You will agree, I am sure, that the machinery can
be only as effective as the personnel who man it. Because
of the nationwide shortage of certain skills, the
competition of private industry and business, and the
rising cost of living, we face ever more serious
recruitment problems. The impact of these factors has been
noted particularly with respect to engineers, custodial
and professional personnel at various institutions, and
social workers. The Public Administration Service has
given us a report on this situation, covering both
classified and unclassified positions, and has recommended
selective increases in salaries to meet the problem. It
merits our attention and action.
civil defense and highway safety
In this message, my discussion has been limited to the
broad objectives and the highlights of legislation which
will be presented to you. There are many other
constructive and forward-looking proposals which are
worthy of discussion but which I have omitted because of
considerations of time. Highways and other budget matters
will be discussed in the budget message.
Before closing, however, I would like to touch briefly
upon two other programs, which are of vital concern to us,
in order that I may pay tribute to the dedicated citizens
who are giving them vitality and meaning; and I refer to
the programs of civil defense and highway safety.
Each of these programs involve the problem of destroying
apathy and stimulating action on the part of rank-and-file
citizens of Maine. They are often described as
``thankless' tasks, and, perhaps they are, in terms of the
difficulty of achieving results. And yet, in terms of
their immediate and potential impact upon the fortunes and
lives of every one of us, they constitute a challenge
which, I am sure, is a source of satisfaction to those who
are giving of their time and energies to make them work.
In civil defense, the department should have additional
personnel, including technical staff, to equip it to deal
with the technological phases of civil defense and to make
a start toward development of area offices.
Recommendations in this connection will be made in the
budget message.
In highway safety, the Governor's Highway Safety
Committee should be given formal legislative recognition
and an operating budget. In addition, the Committee's
legislative program, designed to improve our motor vehicle
laws from a safety standpoint, deserves your earnest
cooperation.
conclusion
In closing, I would like to leave with you some thoughts
expressed by Thomas Jefferson in 1816 in a discussion of
the relationship between men and their governments:
``I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and
untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think
moderate imperfections had better be borne with. But I
know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand
with the progress of the human mind. As new discoveries
are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions
change with the change of circumstances, institutions must
advance also, and keep pace with the times.''
Under divine guidance, and with confidence in the common
sense of the people, we will find the wisdom to apply
these principles to our own times and circumstances.
Edmund S. Muskie,
Governor.
Inaugural Address of Edmund S. Muskie
Governor of Maine to the Ninety-Seventh Legislature
State of Maine
January 6, 1955.
address
Mr. President and Members of the 97th Legislature:
You and I have been sent here by our fellow citizens to
participate as their representatives in the exercise of
the functions of government. The work we do for them, if
honestly and conscientiously done, can be a source of
satisfaction to each of us. For this is the biennial
renewal in Maine of that experiment begun more than 160
years ago--an experiment which has proven that man can be
trusted with self-government. In the words of Thomas
Jefferson, we exist ``as standing proofs that a
government, so modeled as to rest continually on the will
of the whole society, is a practicable government.'' This,
then, is, at the same time, the nature of our function and
the measure of our responsibility.
As we meet together for the first time, it is customary
and appropriate that we consider the scope of the problems
which confront us. We must develop a plan for action if we
are to proceed effectively and in an orderly fashion to
deal with the work which must be done. The decisions to be
made must be shared by the Governor, the Legislature, and
the people. You and I are the instruments for recording
the will of the people; and we can draw strength, wisdom,
and inspiration from the fact that a well-informed
citizenry can be trusted to support decisions which are in
the best interests of all.
In our approach to our work, we can feel secure in the
knowledge that our form of government, our traditions, and
our democratic institutions give us a solid base on which
to build for the future. We will be working not on
quicksand but on solid rock. We should strive to make the
structure which we build equally sound and enduring.
Our satisfaction in the recognition of this fact,
however, should not dull our awareness of the need to take
positive and constructive action in many areas of State
government. The world does not stand still, and, we should
adapt our concepts, our laws, and the functions of
government to changing times and circumstances. To do
otherwise would be to say that we lack the courage, the
foresight, and the ability to use the tools which our
ancestors so wisely provided. Only we the living can apply
those tools to uses which will meet our needs today.
Let us not do ourselves the injustice of underestimating
the resources which we have at our disposal. Not the least
of these are the quality and character of Maine people--
honest, hardworking, and resourceful--eager and willing to
apply themselves to new endeavors. They ask only that
their leaders point the way.
What, then, are the roads which we should travel? There
are, broadly viewed, three such roads. One lies in the
direction of developing our natural and industrial
resources, on which the social and economic well-being of
our citizens must rest. The second road is that of
development and conservation of our human resources,
whether they be children in our school system, the aged in
need of understanding care, or the inmates of our
institutions who possess the rights not only of
intelligent care but of rehabilitation and, if
practicable, return to society. The third avenue which
must be traveled if we are to live up to our
responsibilities is that of improvement of the processes
of government itself. To these three major ends of good
State government let us here dedicate ourselves.
We must first of all do what we can to expand our
capacity to produce a better life for ourselves and for
our children. This calls for the progressive development
and sound conservation of those God-given land and water
resources which are available for our use. It is not a
task for government alone. It is a task for government and
free enterprise working in partnership to create an
economic climate in which creative men can take risks and
reap rewards. Such a partnership, working effectively, can
produce that continuous flow of new ideas and new
leadership which we must have to achieve increased
employment and economic prosperity. Our progress in this
direction will in large measure affect our capacity to
expand our educational facilities, to improve our State
institutions, to provide for the needy and unfortunate, to
construct an adequate highway system, and, in general, to
make government a more effective instrument for service to
our people.
We are, I think, more sensitive to the need for an
aggressive program of industrial development than we have
been for some time. It is appropriate to consider whether
we have the most effective tools for that purpose.
We need an agency with strong executive direction, its
efforts devoted full-time to this problem alone, and its
organization geared to enlist maximum support and effort
from various civic and municipal organizations. Community
effort is the key factor in the process of creating new
job opportunities. It must, however, have the guidance and
leadership which can be supplied effectively by an
integrated State agency, staffed with men who are expert
in the fields of sales and promotion, research, planning
and development.
The Maine Development Commission, with its divided
responsibilities, does not meet these requirements. This
is not to detract from its efforts in the field of
recreational development where, within the limits of
available funds, it has done its most effective work. It
is also working with the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Sea and Shore Fisheries to do promotional
work in those important areas of our economy. I am not
suggesting that its jurisdiction in these fields be
eliminated or restricted. Indeed, its funds for these
purposes ought to be increased if it is to meet the ever
growing competition from other states.
As merely one phase of the Commission's work, however,
industrial development cannot receive the emphasis which
it must have if we are to get the results we want.
I recommend, therefore, that a new Department of
Industry and Commerce be created to take over this work.
Its mission would be to assist in the strengthening and
expansion of existing industries, the creation of new
industries within the State, and the attracting of new
industries to the State from other areas.
It is contemplated that the department be headed by a
single commissioner supervising and directing the work of
three divisions--research, planning, and development, each
under its own director.
The research division would be a constantly expanding
source of data basic to the development of industry and
commerce including labor, sites, space, equipment,
housing, materials, transportation, markets, and other
economic considerations; and its work and studies should
be advanced by coordination of research with existing
private and governmental agencies and educational
institutions.
One of the most important areas of research should be in
the field of geology. This type of research, which has
long been carried on by the State, must be expanded in
order fully to exploit our mineral resources. Suggestive
of the importance of this type of program are the new
discoveries of our own manganese deposits in Aroostook
County and those immediately across the New Brunswick
border and the hopes held for their commercial
development.
Using the information supplied by the research division,
the planning division would design plans for the
coordinated and effective economic development of the
State, with respect to its topography, resources, and its
present needs and future possibilities: and, in advancing
its work, it would advise, confer, and cooperate with
municipal planning boards and civic organizations.
With the creation of a State planning division, we will
be in a position to encourage and implement local and
regional planning. For this purpose Federal funds are
available and I recommend enactment of enabling
legislation to qualify for such funds.
The development division, functioning through area
offices and representatives working outside the State,
would be the sales and promotional arm of the department,
coordinating the efforts of public, private, and other
agencies in cooperation with local government and civic
groups. Additional details will be spelled out in the
budget message and in the legislation to be submitted in
support of this recommendation. It has been my purpose
here merely to indicate that this is the kind of new
approach which must be made if we are to do the job
effectively.
The work of the new department should be supplemented by
recognition of the fact that the deep-water ports of our
matchless coast-line are a State resource with an
undeveloped potential important to our entire economy. The
Maine Port Authority was created to develop the shipping
and commerce in all Maine ports. The Authority cannot do
this job without funds for promotion, solicitation of
business, and engineering and port development. I
recommend that such funds be provided.
No discussion of industrial development would be
complete without reference to the problem of stream
improvement. In the first place, solution of the problem
has serious economic implications for existing industries
which must not be disregarded. In the second place, an
abundant supply of clean water has undoubted advantages as
an inducement for new industries to locate in this State.
These advantages will increase as the problem of water
supply becomes more acute in other parts of the country;
and we should improve our position in this respect as
quickly as possible. The need for action becomes even
clearer when we consider the subject of clean streams as a
conservation measure important to our recreation industry
and our shellfish industry.
The necessity for action is easier to spell out than is
the solution. Patience, ingenuity, and cooperation on the
part of all those interested will be required before the
problem is brought under control if we are to avoid undue
burdens for existing industries and our municipalities.
Consistent with these considerations, the following
action is recommended at this time:
1. Completion of the work of classification of waters
within 2 years, and appropriation of the necessary funds.
2. A tightening of the third highest classification,
class ``C,'' which, under present law, is too broad.
3. Reorganization of the Water Improvement Commission to
give increased representation to ``public'' members having
no direct connection with industry.
4. In addition, the Commission should be required to
explore the possibilities of pollution abatement and to
report its findings in 2 years, together with its
recommendations relative to methods, costs, and the
setting of a time limit for compliance. For this purpose,
it should draw upon the experience of other States in so
far as such experience is applicable to the pollution
problems which the Commission's classification work
discloses.
lt is essential that our policy in this field be firm
and progressive while avoiding damage to our industrial
structure. Industry has a responsibility to press
constantly forward to a solution. The attack should be
aimed at both industrial waste and municipal sewage, but
progress against the one need not be made contingent upon
progress against the other. A sober, objective approach,
based on a solid foundation of fact and experience, is the
key to a final and satisfactory solution.
It is in order at this point to discuss another water
resource, the power potential of our streams and at
Passamaquoddy Bay. Its development and use is important to
the industrialization of Maine and to the fuller enjoyment
by our citizens of those standards of living which
electric power makes possible.
Whether or not the Quoddy development will be realized
is a question which, at the moment, rests with Congress.
Because of the promise which it holds for industrial
expansion, the influence of State government and our
Congressional delegation must be brought to bear to the
end that a final determination of its feasibility may be
made. The effort in this direction should be stripped of
all partisan, political considerations.
It is timely to consider the wisdom of continuing on our
statute books the Fernald Law which, since 1909, has
prohibited the export from the State of any electric
current generated by any water power in this State. It was
apparently conceived on the theory that, by hoarding our
water power for use only in Maine, industries would flock
here to take advantage of it. The theory did not work out.
As a matter of fact, there is some reason to believe that
the law hampered maximum development of our hydro-electric
power in a period when a large surplus of developed power
would have attracted new industries.
There is no sound reason to continue this isolationist
doctrine which prevents the integration of our power needs
and resources with those of our natural economic
partners--the neighboring New England States and Canada.
Repeal of the Fernald Law at this time would serve at
least two useful purposes:
1. Integration of our power system with those of our
neighbors would enable us to export surplus power in
periods of good water flow and to draw on their systems
when we are confronted with a deficiency. This could very
well reduce the necessity for heavy investment in new
installations to supplement existing facilities in the
areas thus affected. As a result, the pressure for
increases in rates to support such investments would be
reduced.
2. The economic feasibility of developing such sites as
the St. John River may well hinge on whether the power
thus made available can be transported into the Canadian
market. The importance of such a development to the
economy of northern Maine seems obvious.
Our inquiry into the field of water power development
ought to extend to the Public Utilities Commission and the
sufficiency of its authority to protect the consumer with
reference to all utility rates. Legislation bringing this
matter to your attention will undoubtedly be introduced. I
recommend that, in your deliberations, you inquire as to
the following:
1. Whether the present law places an unfair burden on
rate payers by stressing reproduction costs as a part of
the rate base.
2. Whether the commission ought to be afforded
additional trained staff to enable it to thoroughly
analyze and evaluate the case made by any utility company
for a rate increase.
The rate statute should provide the companies with
sufficient revenues to cover legitimate operating expenses
and to support the investment necessary to provide
facilities which will meet consumer demand. It should not
be so inflexible as to give the companies an unjustified
return on investments which were never made. The problem
of incorporating these two objectives in the statute
merits your thoughtful consideration.
Your attention is called to the new frontiers which have
been opened to Maine and the rest of New England by
developments in the field of atomic energy. The New
England committee on atomic energy was wisely created by
the conference of New England governors on February 8,
1954. Its function is to inquire into ways and means of
advancing the interests of New England in the development
of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Its interim
report, recently issued, is a thoughtful and challenging
exposition of the possibilities for stimulating industrial
growth in this entire region.
The committee recommends that the legislatures of the
six New England States consider enactment of legislation,
patterned after a suggested draft, which will enable us to
take advantage of new developments in the field as they
arise. This is an opportunity to begin building for the
future which should not be overlooked.
Intelligent planning for a greater industrial future
requires that we consider the legitimate interests of the
men and women who work for a daily wage. For the most part
they are a hard working and conscientious group, and their
skills and versatility are recognized by industry and
business, not only in this State, but also in other New
England States.
Labor and management relations have been on a high plane
of cooperation and mutual understanding. You can
contribute to a continuation of that record by realistic
and enlightened legislation. The following are suggested
for your consideration:
1. Increases in unemployment compensation benefits and
extension of the benefit period to at least the extent
recommended by the President;
2. Increases in Workmen's Compensation benefits to bring
them more in line with the cost of living;
3. A minimum wage law to implement the recommendations
of both party platforms, and to supplement Federal
legislation;
4. A fair labor relations law to operate in areas not
covered by Federal law; and
5. Change the Department of Labor and Industry to a
Department of Labor, coincident with the creation of a new
Department of Industry and Commerce.
As we look to the future and plan for the development of
Maine, we should give thought to the necessity for
intelligent conservation of those resources with which
nature has endowed us. This calls for attention in the
fields of inland fisheries and game, sea and shore
fisheries, forestry, and agriculture in addition to those
which have already been considered.
They will be discussed in that order:
1. Inland Fisheries and Game: We must strengthen the
operation of our Inland Fish and Game Department. The
warden force needs additional manpower for a more adequate
enforcement of the conservation laws. The role of the Fish
and Game Advisory Council should be strengthened, and its
views should play an ever greater part in the
determination of policy for the department.
There is need to review our program relative to
increasing the fish-life in our lakes and streams. The
hatchery program undoubtedly performs a legitimate
function. There is constructive work to be done, however,
in the encouragement of natural reproduction of fish. This
involves stream management, the construction and
maintenance of fishways, and the protection of spawning
beds.
There is increasing need for revision of our fish and
game laws to provide simplified and uniform rules for the
sportsman to follow.
2. Sea & Shore Fisheries: I recommend that this
department be strengthened to serve the needs of a segment
of our economy whose economic problems are particularly
severe. An increase in the warden force and the
institution of a shell-fish management program merit your
consideration.
New markets, the processing of fish products in this
State, the use of cooperatives in the marketing and
processing of fish--these and other problems are subjects
for continuing and intensified research.
3. Forestry: This is a resource which has contributed
greatly to the economic growth of the State throughout our
history. Forest management, involving intelligent cutting
practices, reforestation and the control and eradication
of disease, is a continuing need if we are to conserve our
forests for our own needs and those of posterity. We
should inquire into the exploitation and stripping of the
forest lands near our borders by non-resident owners and
move to control it.
Our conservation efforts in these three fields might
well be strengthened by the creation of a new Department
of Conservation. I will have more to say on this subject
in a few moments.
4. Agriculture: Soil conservation is an accepted program
designed to promote intelligent use of the soil and its
maximum utilization for the growing of crops. The Federal
program for soil and water conservation funnels about
$1,000,000 per year into the State for this purpose.
Effective continuation of this activity calls for a
relatively modest increase in the State appropriation, and
such increase is recommended.
In addition, State government should assume leadership
in the solution of technological problems which face some
segments of our agricultural economy. There is also a
place for State leadership working with the congressional
delegation in placing the legitimate needs of our farmers
before the Congress, and in seeking the assistance of
Federal agencies in solving problems which are beyond the
capacity of State agencies.
One of the problems most deserving of your attention is
whether or not, in the light of experience both here and
elsewhere, the price fixing of milk at the retail level is
justified. The results of legislation in other States and
the opinion of both producers and consumers of milk in
this State indicate that abolition of retail price
controls may result in greater consumption of milk and
accordingly greater returns to the dealer and the farmer.
You should consider the advisability of such action.
A strong agricultural economy is vital to the prosperity
of the entire State. We must spare no effort within the
reach of State government to serve our farm community.
A deservedly popular and worthwhile feature of our
development program is the expansion and improvement of
the State park facilities. Approximately 400,000 visitors,
including nonresidents and Maine people, use these
facilities annually. We should set our sights on providing
recreational opportunities for a million visitors,
annually. The various parks are revenue producing and
should eventually pay much of their own way.
There is need for additional camping accommodations and
parking areas, as well as bathhouses, roads, and other
improvements. We should gradually provide these additions
within the limits of available funds.
Not only are the parks visible and tangible evidence of
our hospitality to out-of-State visitors, but they also
create opportunities for many of our own people to enjoy
the clean, Maine out-of-doors in pleasant surroundings.
I have now discussed at some length ways and means of
expanding our capacity to provide a better life for our
people. As I have indicated, progress in that direction
will increase the ability of State government to provide
essential services. However, we cannot afford to wait for
a full realization of our hopes and aspirations in that
direction before we take constructive steps forward in the
fields of education, institutions, health and welfare,
highways, and other State functions. We must make at least
a beginning now.
Improved educational facilities are essential if we are
to equip our young people to meet the challenges of a
highly competitive world. They are essential also if we
are to develop the trained leadership of tomorrow which
Maine needs to reach for an ever higher level of economic
development and prosperity.
On all levels of education we face similar problems-
teacher supply, teaching standards, adequate salaries, and
physical plant and equipment. These problems are
complicated by the prospect of a rising student
population.
On the local level, the formula for educational
subsidies in support of public schools should be reviewed.
A determination must be made as to that proportion of the
over-all cost which can be borne by the State within the
limits of available funds, and whether or not the State's
share should be increased. It should not be less than that
which would be provided by the existing formula. Once that
determination has been made, a formula for an equitable
distribution of the funds to municipalities will be in
order. It is suggested that the formula might take into
consideration the ability of a town or city to support its
own schools and the effort which it makes to do so. Our
aim should be to help the towns to help themselves in
raising their educational standards.
The increase in teaching positions resulting from the
rising student population, when added to the vacancies
created each year by teachers leaving the profession and
to the number of teachers serving on sub-standard
credentials, indicates a teacher supply problem which will
tax our ingenuity. It is estimated that the shortage for
the single school year 1955-56 will reach 1,000. And in
the face of this deficit, the number of persons preparing
for teaching is declining.
One of the first steps which must be taken is to broaden
the field of instruction and to raise teaching standards
at the teachers colleges to make them more attractive to
students inclined toward this profession. This requires
additional teaching positions and a higher level of
salaries.
Secondly, the physical plant and equipment at the
teachers colleges should be improved and expanded to
provide capacity for training an adequate supply of
qualified and trained teachers.
Increased salaries and better training facilities are
the inducements which must be offered if we are to solve
the teacher supply problem.
We should provide the funds to strengthen and expand the
faculty and to increase the capacity of the University of
Maine. It would be unrealistic and shortsighted indeed not
to provide advanced educational opportunities within the
State for those young people we need in business, in
industry, and in agriculture. We should plan on an
increase in enrollment of at least 1,200 by 1960.
Three other recommendations in the field of education
are submitted for your consideration:
1. The addition of a course in building trades and a
course in heating and air conditioning at the Maine
Vocational Technical Institute. The school has proven its
worth to the economy of the State and should be gradually
expanded.
2. An increase in the State's appropriation for
vocational rehabilitation. Federal funds are available on
such a generous scale that the State's contribution would
be a relatively modest one. The expenditure would actually
be an economy measure, for as trainees are returned to
useful places in society they relieve the drain on other
assistance programs. In addition, they become productive
and, it is estimated, return to State and Federal
government in taxes many times the cost of their
rehabilitation.
3. The opportunity afforded Maine to participate with
other States in the development of educational television
is being explored by a citizens' committee. I recommend
that the Governor be empowered to appoint proper public
officials to cooperate with the committee in its work.
We cannot expect to correct all the weaknesses in our
educational system at once. A constant review of our needs
and intelligent planning is necessary as we reach for the
standards we should meet.
The subject of institutions is one that is close to the
hearts, minds, and consciences of Maine people as it
hasn't been for many years. There are needs to be filled
and weaknesses to be corrected. Our efforts should be
based on and consistent with long-range planning in this
field. We should avoid patch-work solutions which, in the
last analysis, are the most expensive.
The immediate needs are greatest with respect to Augusta
State Hospital, Pownal State School, the State School for
Boys, and the Men's Reformatory. Overcrowding, improper
housing, understaffing, inadequate provision for
educational and vocational training facilities in the two
schools, and lack of recreational opportunities are some
of the conditions which need correction. These suggest new
construction and an increase in appropriations to provide
additional personnel, from attendants and nurses to
professional staff. Recommendations along these lines will
be included in the budget message next week.
Attention must also be given to requirements of the
Maine State Prison. Maximum security as protection for the
public requires additional personnel and improvements to
plant.
The problem of tuberculosis care and cure is another
which has received considerable public attention in past
months. We do not at present have an informed and
comprehensive evaluation of our present program in terms
of the latest advances in medicine. Such an evaluation is
in process and, when completed, should enable us to adapt
our program to the latest concepts of tuberculosis
control. We should not underestimate the need which is
being met by our sanatoria and which will continue into
the presently foreseeable future. We ought to provide
additional facilities at our mental hospitals to meet the
tuberculosis problem with which they are struggling.
As we review our entire institutional problem, we should
strive to achieve a standard of care which will operate to
rehabilitate those who are institutionalized to useful
places in society. Not only is such a standard humane, it
is also effective economy. It will require constant effort
to improve supervision, organization and plant.
The Department of Institutions is large, growing, and
complex. A deputy commissioner should be provided to make
possible closer over-all supervision. Moreover, it is
recommended that the department be analyzed and evaluated
with reference to its organization and needs with a view
to increasing its over-all effectiveness.
Early attention should be given to the problem of the
new School for the Deaf. The thoughtful gift of former
Governor Percival P. Baxter for construction of a new
school on Mackworth Island was supplemented by a
legislative appropriation 2 years ago. Since that time,
construction of a causeway to the island was begun and is
almost completed. Plans for the school have been drawn and
some earth has been moved. Because the funds available
proved to be obviously insufficient, however, the plans
were not submitted for bids.
By its terms, Governor Baxter's gift was to be withdrawn
if construction of the school and a bridge was not begun
by January 1, 1955. He has very generously agreed that the
work already done constitutes compliance with this
condition. However, it is recommended that, in order to
avoid further delay and to comply with the spirit of his
gift, you should make it a first order of business to
appropriate the necessary additional funds by emergency
legislation. Further reference will be made on that point
in the budget message.
The needs of the aged, the blind, the disabled, and the
children who are dependent upon State assistance deserve
our sympathetic consideration.
There are two programs in process now which, it is
hoped, will lift some of the burdens of some of these
people. The department is putting into effect a
liberalized program of old age assistance which will give
relief to many of our older citizens who have been
ineligible previously. The new program for aid to the
disabled also meets a need. Appropriations to support each
of these new programs will be recommended in the budget
document to be submitted.
I recommend a continuation of the Committee on Aging and
commend its excellent report to your consideration.
I recommend, also, that the hospital aid program be
adapted to purchase hospitalization for the recipients of
these assistance programs. This can be done in such a way
as to claim Federal funds to supplement the State's
appropriation. It would involve creation of a pool, into
which payments would be made in the name of each of the
recipients under the department's assistance programs.
Payments for hospitalization of recipients would be made
from the pool. It is suggested one-half of the recommended
appropriation for hospital aid be applied to this purpose.
Also, in connection with hospital aid, there are
instances when smaller communities are confronted with
hospital bills for relief cases which are staggering in
the light of the community's valuation and revenues.
Relief in such instances by the State could be given at a
relatively modest cost. Legislation will be proposed to,
in effect, insure towns against catastrophic hospital
expenses of this kind which cannot be anticipated.
In the discussion of problems relative to education,
institutions, State parks and other activities of State
government, I have referred to the need for capital
improvements. The need for such outlay also occurs from
time to time in connection with State armories and office
buildings. It is clear, as we consider available State
funds, that all of the essential needs in this respect
cannot be provided at this time.
This raises the question as to the need for a long-range
view of the problem if we are to plan intelligently for
the implementation of our programs in these fields. It is
equally important, for example, to provide housing for
patients in an overcrowded mental hospital as it is to
provide food, clothing, and medical care.
An effective approach to this problem requires that we
consider the following:
1. What buildings do we need now and in the foreseeable
future;
2. What will they cost;
3. What reserves should we set aside annually to meet
the problem.
In the past there has been little effort toward this
type of effective planning. The building program has been
keyed to the general fund surplus account. This account
has been variable and unpredictable with no relation to
the need. Furthermore, the surplus has been used from time
to time for operational expenditures of a recurring
nature.
As a result, we have not met the needs as they have
occurred. Overcrowded conditions at such institutions as
the Augusta State Hospital, the lack of educational,
vocational, and recreational facilities at Pownal and the
State School for Boys, the lack of dormitory and other
essential facilities at the State Teachers' Colleges--
these and other accumulated deficiencies attest to the
weakness of our capital improvement program.
There has been no centralized nor uniform planning of
the over-all program. There are obvious advantages in that
respect with reference to such items as types of
architecture, specifications, engineering, bidding
procedures, and contracts. Such planning could, in my
opinion, save the taxpayer thousands of dollars.
I recommend, therefore, that we set up a permanent,
long-range construction program, incorporated as a part of
the budget division of the Department of Finance and
Administration. It is anticipated that the initial report
on the nature and scope of the problem will be presented
to the 98th Legislature. The budgetary aspects of this
program will be discussed in the budget message.
We have considered two major areas of improvement in our
State government: the development of our natural and
industrial resources and the preservation of human values
through our institutional and educational services. There
is still a third field for progress: the machinery of
government itself.
So far in these remarks, the ideas submitted to you can
be fitted into the existing structure of our State
government. Much good can be accomplished by their
adoption. But I am convinced that the time has come when
we need to take a long and deliberate look at a structure
which is the result of the accumulated statutes of the 96
legislatures which have met since 1820. There is need to
study this structure in the light of modern laws and
practices and the experience not only of this State but of
the remaining 47 States. In this way we can effectively
evaluate our administrative organization and methods, to
determine whether they are suited to carrying on State
functions in the most effective manner and to getting the
work of State government done in the most economical way.
Such a study is neither a new nor radical idea. It was
suggested in 1929 by Governor Gardiner. In 1930 the
National Institute of Public Administration submitted an
exhaustive survey report covering every phase of State
government. Unfortunately, this report was never as fully
exploited as it deserved to be. Although recognized as
both progressive and authoritative in other States, it
remains in large part as an agenda of unfinished business.
To bring such a survey up to date and then to carry into
effect its most important recommendations are two of the
most constructive objectives which any legislature and
State administration can pursue. Accordingly, I urge that
such a survey be undertaken and the necessary funds
provided.
The survey should include an inquiry into the
advisability of consolidating the conservation departments
into a new Department of Conservation, the reorganization
of the Department of Institutional Services, and other
organizational problems. It ought also to evaluate the
effectiveness of programs dealing with pollution,
conservation, highways, and others. It can review our tax
structure. The field of inquiry would be as broad as
government itself.
In the course of such a survey it will be both helpful
and necessary for committees of citizens and public
officials to consult with the survey staff, so that the
final recommendations will reflect proper solutions to our
own problems.
In no area of State government will such a committee be
more helpful than in that of Constitutional revision. For
many years students of our State government have pointed
out the need to winnow out the wheat from the chaff of our
Constitution and its many amendments. Such a committee
would study such proposals as a 4-year term for governor,
annual sessions of the Legislature, reduction of the
voting age, abolition or popular election of the Executive
Council, the method of reapportionment, the proper
procedure and agency for the consideration of petitions
for pardons, and the appointment or election of various
officials.
If a survey of our State government is authorized by the
Legislature, I suggest that the Governor be empowered to
appoint such necessary citizens' committees, including a
Committee on Constitutional Revision, to assist in this
vast but fruitful project.
In all candor, however, I consider it my duty to suggest
certain steps that should be taken immediately. Perhaps
the foremost of these is the compliance by the Legislature
with the existing mandate to reapportion in accordance
with the Constitution. A second such project is the long
discussed proposal to change the election date to conform
with that of the other States of the Nation. A suggestion
with much apparent merit is that Maine elect its Governor
for a 4-year term, such election to be in November in a
non-presidential year, so that it would be possible for
State and national issues to be more effectively
distinguished by the electorate when they go to the polls.
A third step meriting your immediate attention is the
revision of your own procedures with the objectives of
expediting the transaction of legislative business.
In conjunction with these suggestions for the
improvement of this all important business of government,
it is my intention to expand the activities of the newly
created judicial council to the end that our system of
justice shall be made even more effective. Such matters as
the review of rules of procedure, our practices in
imposing sentences and in the administration of our
probation and parole systems, and the creation of
specialized courts are possible subjects of study and
recommendation.
In these days of international tensions and cold war, I
feel it is imperative to emphasize the need for
strengthening and expanding our Civil Defense effort.
Public apathy and indifference constitutes a threat to
effective work in this respect. As public officials we
must take it upon ourselves to promote widespread interest
in and cooperation with the State, county and local
organizations. Our planning for the future will not be
complete nor realistic if we do not guard against the
disasters which can strike suddenly and unexpectedly.
These, then, are the broad objectives as I see them. You
will note that I have not discussed taxation and highway
problems and policy. Inasmuch as these are largely
financial matters, I have chosen to discuss them at length
in the budget message which will be presented next week.
Progress and constructive achievement are possible only
if we set our sights on high-minded objectives and work
constantly toward them. I am sure we can agree that the
people of Maine do not want to stand still while the rest
of the country forges ahead. Someone has said, ``The road
that stretches before the feet of a man is a challenge to
his heart long before it tests the strength of his legs.''
Working together, with God's help, we can meet this
challenge and start down the broad road to a brighter
future for all our people.
Roosevelt Campobello Park Commission
Tribute To
Edmund Sixtus Muskie
On March 26, 1996, the Roosevelt Campobello
International Park, the State of Maine, the United States,
and the free world lost a wise and affectionate advocate,
an intelligent spirit and a remarkable guiding light.
State legislator, Governor, United States Senator, and
United States Secretary of State, Ed Muskie would have
been 82 on his birthday 2 days later.
Born Edmund Sixtus Muskie on March 28, 1914, in Rumford,
ME, his father was a Polish immigrant and his mother was
from a Polish-American family in Buffalo, NY. In classical
American success terms, Ed worked his way through Bates
College; elected to Phi Beta Kappa, he graduated cum
laude. His budding political leadership and adroitness
with the English language were evidenced by his being
elected president of his class and spearheading the Bates
debating team to victories around the country. Ed Muskie
went on to earn a law degree from Cornell University and
he established a law practice in Waterville, ME, in 1940.
During Word War II, he served on destroyer escorts in both
the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. After the war, he
returned to Waterville to practice law. From 1948 to 1951,
he served in the Maine House of Representatives, and was
Governor of Maine from 1955 to 1959, when he was elected
to the United States Senate from Maine. He served in the
Senate until 1980 when President Jimmy Carter appointed
him Secretary of State.
Blessed with unusual intellectual capacity, voracious
reading habits, a keen sense of humor, profound commitment
to family, friends and community, and a love of and
respect for public service, Ed Muskie leaves many
significant accomplishments that will change our lives for
the better for generations to come. Known as ``Mr. Clean''
in Senate circles, he rightfully is honored for putting in
place much of the United States' clean air and clean water
legislation that has and will protect environmental health
for the future. As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
he brought to bear his fiscal conservatism and Down-East
common sense to preserve the financial health of his
government and country.
Without the skills, perseverance, persistence, political
acumen and dreams of Ed Muskie, it is unlikely that we
would have a Roosevelt Campobello International Park
today. The ultimate tribute to Canadian-U.S. friendship
and the first truly joint international park, the original
concept for the Roosevelt Campobello International Park
was a tender spark that Ed Muskie nurtured, cautiously
breathed the breath of life upon, sensitively encouraged
and eventually shepherded to reality through the halls of
government. There were few things as close to his heart as
Campobello, and throughout his life he kept an unusually
devoted eye and ear on the fortunes of the Park, assuring
its careful stewardship as its provident guardian.
Vice Chairman of the Roosevelt Campobello International
Park Commission when he died, Ed Muskie had served as the
alternating Chairman/Vice Chairman of the Commission since
its inception, except for a brief time when he was the
U.S. Secretary of State. He took a clearly proprietary
interest in the workings of the Park and deftly guided its
development and growth as a father would guide the
progress of a child. The Commission owes a debt of
gratitude to Ed Muskie, its last founding member, for the
Park's strength and viability.
Often plain-spoken, and always with certain views, Ed
had an enviable efficiency with words born of his debating
heritage. Renowned for his integrity, Ed was outspoken on
the subject of accountability. On the occasion of his 80th
birthday celebration (which was actually celebrated some
six or seven times so as to satisfy the many
constituencies he served and which loved him) he said:
``I enjoyed executive responsibility as Governor and
Secretary of State. You're more clearly accountable
because you're more visible, and I liked that. I tend to
do a better job if I'm visible and accountable. I may be
grumpy, but I like the pressure.''
Ed loved the pressure and on many occasions
intentionally created the pressure that helped us all to
make better choices and decisions--usually along the lines
of his values, principles and integrity. Each of us, our
shared communities, our countries and the world at large
are poorer for his passing, but by far richer for his
having been with us. We will miss him.
Our deepest sympathies and condolences go to his devoted
wife Jane Frances Gray Muskie and their five children and
seven grandchildren. Thank you for sharing him with us.
a
January 22, 1964
Senator Edmund S. Muskie,
Room 221, O.S.O.B.,
Washington, 25, DC.
Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D-ME) and Congressman James
Roosevelt (D-CA), today announced their intention to
introduce legislation which would establish a Franklin D.
Roosevelt Campobello International Memorial Park in line
with the agreement reached by President Lyndon B. Johnson
and Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson.
In April 1961, Senator Muskie wrote President John F.
Kennedy urging that a ``living memorial'' to President
Roosevelt be established on Campobello Island, the scene
of many of President Roosevelt's happiest days in his
childhood and youth. It was at Campobello where the former
President won his initial victory over the crippling
illness of polio, as depicted in the hit play and movie,
``Sunrise at Campobello.''
In May 1963, President Kennedy and Prime Minister
Pearson discussed the possibility of establishing a
memorial to the late President. President Kennedy called
Dr. Armand Hammer, then owner of the property who
graciously agreed to donate the Roosevelt residence, as a
symbol of Canadian-American friendship, subject to the
conclusion of an agreement between the two countries. In
the subsequent negotiations between the two governments,
Congressman Roosevelt has played a major role in working
out the details involved.
Campobello Island, 8 miles long and an average of 2
miles in width, is wholly located within the Canadian
Province of New Brunswick. A bridge connecting the Island
with the Town of Lubec on the U.S. mainland was completed
in 1962. Campobello is typical of coastal islands along
the shore of Maine and New Brunswick and its geography is
similar to that of Acadia National Park, 70 miles to the
southwest. President Roosevelt's home is still standing in
excellent condition. There is one small fishing village on
the island and a few summer homes. Only a small portion of
the island is in private hands. There are forest trails
through most of the island.
From an introduction written by Edmund S. Muskie to
several articles on Cobscook Bay. Volume 9 of the Island
Journal, the Annual Publication of the Island Institute:
``. . . The governments of Canada and the United States
created the Park to conserve the Roosevelt Cottage and the
natural area around it as a symbol of international
friendship. The Commission has devoted special attention
to the island's cobble beaches, headlands, fog forests,
bogs, ponds, and meadows, protecting them while making
them accessible to visitors. In our work we have gained a
sense of the complex relationships of seas, land, climate,
flora, and fauna that make this area such a challenging
and surprisingly rich environment. . . .''
From the article in the same volume, One Big
Neighborhood, by David D. Platt:
``. . . the Park is ``Canadian soil which has become
part of America's heritage and which is being preserved
for the future through the commitment of the citizens and
governments of both countries,'' according to former Maine
Senator Edmund S. Muskie. . . .
Source unknown:
The fascination of Campobello is as much symbolic as it
is physical . . . it is Canadian soil which has become
part of America's heritage. . . . Edmund S. Muskie.
From the introduction, by Edmund S. Muskie, of Alden
Nowlans book Campobello, the Outer Island:
``. . . When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in whose memory
the Park was created, came to Campobello as a child, it
was to pursue the orderly summer adventures available to a
well-to-do victorian family. When he came as a young
husband, whose third son was born on the island, it was to
taste the excitements of childhood from the perspective of
manhood and to pass on to his children the same challenges
and rewards he had known. And finally, when he came as
President of the United States, it was to take new
strength and composure from Campobello's air and land,
from the sea around it, and from the memories of ease his
`beloved island' awoke in him.''
``. . . In the 2,600 acres of the Park at the southeast
end of Campobello Island, more than a memory is preserved.
The Roosevelt `Cottage' is there, the simple wicker
furniture and the knick-knacks of a summer home. But
beyond the gardens are the bogs and the fog forests, the
bays and shoals--all the natural beauties the Roosevelt
family knew protected now for others to enjoy.''
``Those who read this book--even if they were never to
travel to Campobello--can catch in these pages the magic
and the meaning of an island which is unlike any other!
Although isolated by geography, it has entered the lives
of two nations as a place to invite any soul to refresh
any weariness with a sense of continuity and endeavor.''
``Finally, the Commission dedicates this book to the
people of Campobello Island. It is, after all, their
island which we are privileged to share; and this is their
story.'' United States Senate, Washington, DC, May 1,
1975, Edmund S. Muskie.
ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS
[From The Washington Post, March 27, 1996]
Edmund S. Muskie Dies at 81; Senator and Secretary of
State
(By Bart Barnes)
Edmund S. Muskie, 81, who served 21 years in the U.S.
Senate, where he became an influential member of the
Democratic leadership, and then 10 months as Secretary of
State during the final year of the Carter administration,
died yesterday at Georgetown University Hospital after a
heart attack.
Muskie, of Maine, was the 1968 Democratic nominee for
Vice President on the ticket headed by then Vice President
Hubert H. Humphrey. They lost that election to Richard M.
Nixon and Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew, but Muskie
emerged from the campaign as a politician of commanding
national stature, with a reputation for straightforward
thinking and level-headed judgment.
He sought the Democratic Presidential nomination for
himself in 1972 and at one point was considered the
leading contender. But he was unable to establish a
clearly defined constituency, and he failed to strike the
same responsive chords he had touched 4 years earlier as a
Vice Presidential candidate. After 6 weeks of lackluster
primary performances, he withdrew from the contest.
In the Senate, Muskie was known for a sharp and
inquiring mind, limitless energy, a short temper and a
contempt for sham and pretense. His political oratory was
said to have been Lincolnesque, a mixture of pride and
good-humored self-deprecation. But he was also blunt and
determined, and he had a taste for combat in those
campuses he espoused.
President Clinton praised Muskie yesterday as ``a
dedicated legislator and caring public servant'' and said
he was ``a leader in the best sense. He spoke from his
heart and acted with conviction. Generations to come will
benefit from his steadfast commitment to protecting the
land.''
Before his election to the Senate in 1958, Muskie had
served two terms as Governor of Maine, and his rugged 6-
foot-4-inch frame and craggy features often were likened
to the rocky Maine coast. As a boy he had fished in the
clear, fresh streams of his native State and hunted in its
forests, and from those experiences he acquired a love of
nature that in later years would become the foundation for
one of the major legislative efforts of his political
career.
During the 1960s and 1970s, Muskie drafted most of the
environmental legislation enacted by Congress, and many
environmentalists considered him their most effective
leader. He was author and manager of more than a dozen
major environmental bills, beginning with the Clean Air
Act of 1963 and the Water Quality Act of 1965.
He became the first Chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee in 1974 and in this capacity established a
process of careful and sophisticated monitoring of Federal
spending totals. That often involved marshaling a fragile
coalition of liberals and conservatives to limit spending
in programs as diverse as Pentagon weapon systems and
school lunches. In his role as committee chairman, Muskie
became a voice for budgetary stability. ``We cannot allow
our policies to be guided by every small movement of the
economic statistics,'' he once said.
President Carter named him Secretary of State in April
1980, following the resignation of Cyrus R. Vance in
protest over the abortive attempt to use military force to
free 52 U.S. hostages held in Iran. The President
described him as a ``man of vision . . . reason,
conscience . . . great sensitivity and great knowledge
about our Nation and people'' at Muskie's swearing-in
ceremony.
His stewardship at the State Department coincided with
the continuing crisis over the holding of the American
hostages and the U.S.-led effort to impose economic
sanctions against Iran in retaliation. It also spanned a
period of high tension between the United States and the
Soviet Union after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in
December 1979.
As Secretary of State, Muskie took the lead in calling
for a Western nations boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics
in Moscow in protest of the invasion. Participation by
Western athletes in the Moscow Games, Muskie said, would
be seen by the Soviets as ``confirmation of the rightness
of their foreign policy . . . their system, their
aggression in Afghanistan.''
His public style as Secretary of State tended to be more
direct and assertive than many of his predecessors. When
he briefed the media, he often spoke on the record, and
his quotes were for direct attribution instead of for
background, in which the source is not identified. In
describing his foreign policy objectives, he liked to use
the blunt language of his years in the Senate rather than
the caution of a diplomat.
Inevitably, there was rivalry and competition in the
foreign policy arena between Muskie and Carter's national
security affairs adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Additionally, the Secretary was said to have been
distressed over what he saw as a lack of coordination
between the State and Defense Departments over foreign
policy matters. But he denied media reports that he was
unhappy in the job and that he did not plan to serve in a
second Carter administration.
After Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan in the 1980
Presidential election, Muskie returned to private life and
practiced law in Washington. At a farewell dinner shortly
before leaving office, Muskie said he would have enjoyed
another 4 years as Secretary, had Carter been reelected.
``I can't think of a job in public life that creates the
global view more effectively than that of Secretary of
State,'' he said.
Edmund Sixtus Muskie--his middle name was the name of
five Popes--was born in the textile mill town of Rumford,
ME. His father, Stephen Marciszewski, was a tailor and
Polish immigrant who had come to the United States in
1903. Immigration officers at Ellis Island shortened the
name to Muskie.
In high school, the young Muskie excelled as a debater
and a basketball player, and he graduated as valedictorian
of his class. He attended Bates College in Lewiston, ME,
where he was a member of Phil Beta Kappa, president of his
class for 2 years and also a debater. To pay his expenses,
he waited tables at college and worked summers as a
bellhop and dishwasher at a nearby resort.
He won a scholarship to law school at Cornell, then
after graduating in 1939, returned to Maine, where he
opened a law office in Waterville. During World War II, he
served in the Navy aboard destroyer escorts in the
Atlantic and the Pacific.
After the war, Muskie resumed his law practice in
Waterville and began participating in Democratic politics.
He was elected to the Maine House of Representatives in
1946 and reelected in 1948, serving as Democratic floor
leader of the Maine House. In 1951, during his third term,
Muskie resigned from the Maine Legislature to become the
Office of Price Stabilization's district director for
Maine. He left that job in 1952 to become Maine's
Democratic national committeeman.
This was a period when the fortunes of the Maine
Democratic Party were at an unusually low ebb. Always in
the minority in the rock-ribbed Republican State, the
Maine Democratics had been further weakened by the 1952
election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President and the
Republican takeover of power in Washington, resulting in a
loss of Federal patronage.
Consequently, many of the entrenched Democratic Party
leaders began neglecting political affairs, leaving
control of the party by default to Muskie and a generation
of younger Democrats. They decided to challenge the
Republican Governor Burton M. Cross in the 1954
gubernatorial campaign, and they chose Muskie as their
standard-bearer.
Using a combination of handshaking visits at factory and
mill gates, talks with local community organizations and a
limited amount of radio and television advertising, Muskie
won the election to become Maine's first Democratic
Governor in 20 years. As Governor, he pursued a
nonpartisan course, steering a program of economic and
educational programs through a Republican-dominated
legislature. He was easily reelected in 1956.
In 1958, he ran for the U.S. Senate, defeating
Republican Senator Frederick G. Payne by 60,000 votes and
becoming the first popularly elected Democratic Senator in
Maine's history.
In the Senate, Muskie clashed initially with the
powerful Democratic Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson,
over a rule change proposal to permit the cutting short of
filibusters. When he refused to go along with Johnson's
request to oppose the change, Muskie found himself
excluded from the committee assignments he'd requested,
including Foreign Affairs, which had been his first
choice. Instead, he served on the Banking and Currency,
Public Works and Government Operations committees. During
that early period in the Senate, he said later, he was
``frustrated, lonely, disillusioned and discontented.''
But he was a hard worker, conscientious and thorough. In
time, he became a master of the Senate's procedural
intricacies, and he eventually won the respect of its
inner circle, including Johnson, who after becoming
President is said to have described Muskie as ``a real
powerhouse . . . one of the few liberals who's a match for
the Southern legislative craftsmen.''
On the divisive issue of the war in Vietnam, Muskie
supported the President, although he is said to have
expressed his doubts about the war to Johnson privately.
In October 1969, after Johnson had left office, Muskie
backed the anti-war protest Vietnam moratorium, and in
1970 he supported the McGovern-Hatfield resolution calling
for a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by 1971.
He was not widely known outside the Senate when Humphrey
tapped him as his running mate in the 1968 Presidential
election, but by the end of the campaign his name had
become a household word in American politics. At a time of
dissension and disunity, he projected an image of reason
and reconciliation.
Nor was he easily rattled. A high point in his campaign
took place in Washington, PA, on the campus of Washington
and Jefferson College, when a group of anti-war
demonstrators disrupted one of his speeches. Muskie
defused the situation by inviting one of the hecklers to
join him on the platform. The incident drew nationwide
publicity, and it cast Muskie in a role of champion of the
principles of a free and robust exchange of views within
the democratic process.
Despite his presence on a losing ticket, he was arguably
one of the two or three top Democrats in the Nation after
the 1968 election.
His status was further enhanced by a nationwide election
eve telecast in 1970.
In that speech, according to the account given by author
Theodore H. White, Muskie followed President Nixon on the
air, and in a quiet, self-possessed manner, accused Nixon
and the Republicans of name-calling, slander and
questioning the Democrat's patriotism.
He contrasted what he called Nixon's ``politics of
fear'' with what he said was the Democrats' ``politics of
trust,'' and he urged the American people to cast their
ballots for the Democrats, ``for trusting your fellow
citizens . . . and most of all for trust in yourself.''
By late 1971, Muskie had become the dominant Democrat in
public opinion polls and in the judgment of party
professionals.
But he was unable to capitalize on this standing in the
1972 Democratic Presidential primaries, pursuing a ``Trust
Muskie'' campaign theme and a middle-of-the-road approach
on the issues that neither made enemies nor attracted
zealous supporters.
The collapse of his Presidential campaign was symbolized
by an incident in the New Hampshire primary when Muskie,
speaking from a flatbed trailer outside the Manchester
Union Leader newspaper, broke down in tears and angry
emotion denouncing a story critical of his wife.
``It changed people's minds about me, of what kind of
guy I was,'' he later told White. ``They were looking for
a strong, steady man, and here I was weak.''
This outburst followed publication by the newspaper of a
letter from someone claiming to have heard Muskie
acquiescing in an aide's reference to New England's
alleged problems with ``Canucks,'' a derogatory term for
French Canadians, an important part of the Democratic
electorate. The letter turned out to be a product of the
``dirty tricks'' operation targeted at the opposition by
Nixon reelection forces.
``Nixon's people put it out,'' Nixon biographer Stephen
E. Ambrose said in an interview.
The newspaper also reprinted a Newsweek item concerning
Muskie's wife's purported smoking, drinking and use of
off-color language.
When he appeared in Manchester during a blizzard, the
Senator attacked the newspaper's owner, William Loeb, and,
while defending his wife, appeared to cry three times.
Nationally televised pictures of him wiping away his tears
suggested a sign of weakness that symbolized a campaign
that never lived up to expectations.
Muskie retired from politics when his service as
Secretary of State ended with Reagan's assumption of the
Presidency in January 1981, but he remained in the
Capital, where he practiced law with the firm of
Chadbourne and Parke. In 1987, he served on the Tower
Commission that investigated the Iran-Contra scandal,
delivering a highly critical report of Iranian policy in
the Reagan White House.
He was chairman of the Center for National Policy, an
ideologically progressive think tank, and in that capacity
led congressional delegations to Vietnam in support of
normalization of U.S.-Vietnam relations.
Survivors include his wife, whom he married in 1948,
Jane Frances Gray Muskie; five children, Stephen, Ellen,
Melinda, Martha and Edmund Jr.; and seven grandchildren.
[From the Boston Globe, March 27, 1996]
Edmund Muskie Dies, Senate Stalwart Was 81
(By Mark Feeney)
Edmund S. Muskie, the four-term U.S. Senator from Maine
who saw his 1972 Presidential hopes dashed amid falling
snowflakes in New Hampshire and who, 8 years later as U.S.
Secretary of State, oversaw the negotiations that brought
home the 52 American hostages from Tehran, died yesterday
in Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, DC.
Mr. Muskie, who was 81, had suffered a heart attack last
Thursday following triple bypass surgery.
Mr. Muskie transformed Maine politics, almost
singlehandedly making it a two-party State after decades
of Republican domination. In 1954, he became Maine's first
Democratic Governor in 20 years.
``In those days, winning the Republican nomination was
tantamount to election,'' Eben Elwell, who campaigned for
Mr. Muskie in that campaign, recalled at an 80th birthday
celebration for the former Senator in 1994 at Bates
College, his alma mater. ``I told Ed, `You killed the
tantamount.' ''
In 1958, having won reelection as Governor 2 years
earlier, he became the State's first popularly elected
Democratic Senator. During his years in the Senate, Mr.
Muskie championed environmental causes. Measures he helped
pass include the Clean Air Act of 1963, the Water Quality
Act of 1965 and the Clean Air Act of 1970. He was also the
first chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, from 1975
to 1980.
His efforts to curb air and water pollution won him the
nickname ``Mr. Clean.''
Yesterday, George J. Mitchell, former Senator from
Maine, said, ``This is a sad day for the people of Maine
and the Nation. They have lost a great leader. I have lost
a close and valued friend. Before it was a national cause,
or even well known, environmental protection was Ed
Muskie's passion. To me he was a mentor and a hero as well
as a close personal friend. Just about everything I know
about government and politics I learned from Ed Muskie.
President Clinton said, ``He spoke from the heart and
acted with conviction. Generations to come will benefit
from his steadfast commitment to protecting the land.''
Former President Jimmy Carter, under whom Mr. Muskie
served as Secretary of State, said, ``He was a fine
statesman, a man of impeccable integrity, and remarkably
knowledgeable about the domestic and foreign issues that
affected our country. I have never known any American
leader who was more highly qualified to be President of
the United States.''
Mr. Muskie initially came to national prominence as the
Democratic Vice Presidential nominee with Hubert Humphrey
in 1968. His impressive performance in the second spot on
that ticket made him the early favorite for the party's
1972 Presidential nomination.
His front-runner status also made Mr. Muskie a focus of
``dirty tricks'' by the Nixon White House, and one of
those tricks contributed to the event that came to
symbolize the unraveling of Mr. Muskie's campaign. The
Union Leader of Manchester, NH, printed a spurious letter
accusing Mr. Muskie of laughing at a reference to French
Canadians as ``Canucks.'' In addition, the paper had
attacked Mr. Muskie's wife, Jane.
Standing on a flatbed truck outside the Union Leader
building, the candidate denounced the paper. Journalists
present heard Mr. Muskie choke up and some thought he
started to cry. He later said what looked like tears were
actually melting snowflakes. Regardless, there was the
sense of a candidate helpless to turn around a floundering
campaign. Though Mr. Muskie won the New Hampshire primary,
he led the runner-up, U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD),
by only 9 percentage points. Such a slim victory in a
neighboring State was regarded as a setback. Mr. Muskie
met with a series of primary defeats and withdrew from the
race in April.
His failed candidacy did little to harm Mr. Muskie's
stature in Congress, however. Thus when Secretary of State
Cyrus Vance resigned in 1980 after the failed U.S. mission
to rescue hostages in Iran, President Jimmy Carter turned
to Mr. Muskie, hailing his ``sound judgment and integrity
. . . strength and wisdom.''
Five months after taking over the State Department, Mr.
Muskie was asked what had surprised him. ``The biggest
surprise is that I'm here. It's funny--of all the jobs
I've been ambitious for, this is one that never crossed my
mind.''
Six years later, another President drew upon Mr.
Muskie's stalwart reputation when Ronald Reagan appointed
him to the three-member President's Special Review Board,
popularly known as the ``Tower Commission,'' to
investigate the Iran-Contra scandal. By then, he had
returned to private life, as a senior partner at the
Washington law firm of Chadbourne & Parke, and had the
satisfaction of seeing his seat taken over by a longtime
protege, Mitchell.
Edmund Sixtus Muskie was born in Rumford, ME. In high
school, he turned to debating to overcome his shyness. He
was valedictorian and put his 6-foot-4-inch height to good
use as center on the basketball team. That height, along
with Mr. Muskie's craggy facial features, earned him the
frequent description ``Lincolnesque.''
He worked his way through Bates College, where he was
president of his class and, he later liked to joke, ``the
only Democrat on campus.'' Graduated cum laude in 1936, he
won a scholarship to Cornell University Law School, from
which he received an LLB degree in 1939.
Shortly after Mr. Muskie opened a law practice in
Waterville, ME, the United States entered World War II. He
served as an engineering and deck officer on destroyer
escorts in the Atlantic and Pacific, rising to the rank of
lieutenant and winning three battle stars.
Upon returning to Waterville, Mr. Muskie was urged to
run for the Maine House of Representatives. ``I thought it
would be interesting to be in the Legislature once, while
I was waiting for my law practice to build up.'' He won
and, after winning reelection in 1948, was made Democratic
floor leader.
In 1947, Mr. Muskie had run for mayor of Waterville and
been defeated. That would prove his sole electoral setback
for many years to come. He had decided on running for
Congress in 1954 when he was prevailed upon to run for
Governor. He won an upset victory by a margin of 22,000
votes. Two years later, he won the most votes ever for a
Maine Governor. A prohibitive favorite for a third term in
1958, Mr. Muskie chose to run for the U.S. Senate and won
his third statewide victory in 4 years.
Mr. Muskie earned the ire of then-Senate Majority Leader
Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX), by supporting a measure Johnson
opposed that would have changed Senate rules so
filibusters could be shortened. The majority leader saw to
it that Mr. Muskie failed to receive the committee
assignments he'd wanted (his first choice was Foreign
Affairs). This proved to Mr. Muskie's advantage, however.
One of his assignments was to the Public Works Committee,
which had responsibility for antipollution legislation,
and Mr. Muskie became a leader in the budding
environmental movement.
``I was very frustrated, lonely, disillusioned and
disconsolate,'' Mr. Muskie later admitted of his first few
years in the Senate. Soon enough, though, his steady,
deliberate manner--and occasional outbursts of his fiery
temper--made Mr. Muskie a fixture in that body. Even
Johnson came to admire him as ``a real powerhouse . . .
one of the few liberals who's a match for the Southern
legislative craftsmen.''
Mr. Muskie, as Humphrey's running mate, was one of the
few figures to emerge from the 1968 election with his
reputation enhanced.
Looking back in 1994 he said, ``If I hadn't run for Vice
President, I'd probably have stepped down as Senator after
two terms.'' He paused, then added, ``I'm glad I didn't.''
In 1981, Mr. Muskie received the Nation's highest
civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was
also recipient of the Laetare Medal of Notre Dame
University and the Former Members of Congress
Distinguished Service Award.
Mr. Muskie held honorary degrees from many colleges and
belonged to numerous organizations. Mr. Muskie leaves his
wife, the former Jane Gray; two sons, Steven of
Peterborough, NH, and Edmund S. Jr., of Reston, VA; three
daughters, Ellen Allen of Reston, VA, Melinda Stanton of
Marshfield and Martha Muskie of Washington, DC; and seven
grandchildren.
A funeral Mass will be said at 11 a.m. Saturday in the
Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda, MD. Burial will
be in Arlington National Cemetery.
a
[From the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME), March 27, 1996]
Edmund Muskie Dies at 81, Revered Statesman Personified
Maine
(By John Ripley)
Edmund S. Muskie, the son of a Polish immigrant who
ascended from the hardscrabble mill town of Rumford to the
marbled echelons of American government, died early
Tuesday. He was 81.
The former Maine Governor, Senator, and Secretary of
State, who would have turned 82 on Thursday, died at 4:06
a.m. at Georgetown University Medical Center in
Washington, DC, after suffering from a heart attack last
week.
Muskie had entered the hospital last Monday for surgery
to clear a blocked artery in his leg. Although the surgery
was successful, he had a heart attack early Thursday.
Three days later, Muskie lost consciousness and was put on
life-support systems.
He is survived by his wife of 47 years, Jane, five
children and seven grandchildren.
On Tuesday, flags at buildings across Maine were at
half-staff.
Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m. Saturday, March
30, at the Church of the Little Flower, 5607 Massachusetts
Avenue, Bethesda, MD, followed by interment at Arlington
National Cemetery. The family asks that in lieu of
flowers, donations be sent to the Edmund S. Muskie
Archives at Bates College in Lewiston, or the Edmund S.
Muskie School of Public Service at the University of
Southern Maine in Portland.
Muskie, who was practicing law in Washington, DC, at the
time of his death, served in more top government posts
than any other Maine resident in the 20th century. During
more than 30 years in politics, Muskie climbed the
political ladder from the Maine Legislature to the U.S.
Department of State, earning a reputation as a solid
legislator whose character was marked by candor, a
sweeping personal view of politics and history, and an
infamous temper.
Above all, he was Maine--hard-working, stubborn,
unwavering in his beliefs, and honest beyond reproach.
Years ago, someone at a Kansas City hotel asked Muskie if
he ``needed anything for the night,'' suggesting a
liaison. ``Well,'' he replied, ``I am all out of
toothpaste.''
Muskie was born March 28, 1914, in Rumford to Stephen
and Josephine Muskie, the second of six children. His
mother was a native of Buffalo, NY, and his father, a
tailor, moved to the United States from Poland in 1903 to
avoid conscription into the czar's army. The original
family name, Marciszewski, was shortened by harried
immigration officials.
As a thin, awkward and introverted young man of modest
means, Muskie worked his way through Bates College,
graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a degree in history and
government in 1936. Three years later, he graduated from
Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY.
Dressed in ill-fitting suits and clip-on bow ties,
Muskie settled in Waterville to practice law. His
struggling practice was interrupted by World War II, in
which he served as a junior naval officer on destroyer
escorts in the Atlantic and Pacific. After the war, Muskie
returned to Waterville and the life of a small-town
lawyer.
At the urging of local Democratic leaders, he ran for
the Maine House of Representatives in 1946, igniting one
of Maine's most storied political careers, and one for
which he had prepared a decade earlier by taking debate
courses at Bates.
As a freshman legislator, Muskie suffered a rare
political defeat in 1947 when he lost the Waterville
mayoral race. In May of the next year, he married the
former Jane Gray of Waterville. They eventually would have
two sons and three daughters: Stephen, Ellen, Melinda,
Martha and Edmund Jr., known as Ned.
In 1951, Muskie resigned his seat in the Legislature to
accept an appointment as State director of the Office of
Price Stabilization. After a brief stint as Waterville's
solicitor, Muskie became Maine's Democratic national
committeeman in 1952, just as the Eisenhower era was
ushered in.
Two years later, Muskie was nominated to make a bid for
Governor. It was a time in which Maine was overwhelmingly
Republican, and Democrats joked they could hold their
State convention in a telephone booth.
After spending all of $14,000--some of it for spots on a
newfangled invention called television--and touring
Maine's potholed back roads in his battered 1949 Lincoln,
Muskie defeated incumbent Governor Burton Cross. Besides
being the State's first Democratic chief executive in 20
years, Muskie also was the first Polish-American Governor
in any State.
``We sensed a dissatisfaction with the State government
and it presented a challenge,'' Muskie once said.
Later, he would credit television in part for his
election to the Blaine House, an innovation that allowed
an underfinanced Democrat to bypass the bitterly partisan
print press of the day. He had a simple time-for-a-change
message that was delivered to an audience already
entranced by the novel medium.
``You know,'' he once told a friend, Clyde MacDonald,
``I was the first real live Democrat most of the people
saw or listened to directly.''
Muskie later won a second 2-year term and became known
and respected for his nonpartisan politics, guiding
economic and educational programs through the Republican
legislature.
The Maine leader was fond of telling the story from his
1956 gubernatorial reelection campaign of how back-
slapping and hand-shaking had become a subconscious
ritual: Upon returning home from the campaign trail one
night, he was greeted at the door by Mrs. Muskie. The
Governor stuck out his hand and said, ``How are all the
folks up your way today?''
In 1958, he became the first popularly elected
Democratic U.S. Senator in the State's history. Along with
Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the two formed
one of the country's most influential senatorial
delegations, though their relationship was marked as well
by competition.
An avid outdoorsman, Senator Muskie took the lead in
promoting environmental concerns and was at the forefront
of the passage of the 1963 Clean Air Act and the 1965
Water Quality Act. Twenty years later it was his protege,
Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, who updated the
measures.
When Muskie entered the Senate, Mitchell said, there
were virtually no movements to protect the environment.
``He essentially created them,'' Mitchell said.
At 6 feet 4 inches tall, Muskie was known as an imposing
figure with an abundant intellect. Friends and former
colleagues said Muskie's Senate tenure was marked by his
thoughtful approach to legislation, and his ability to
sway opponents to his side.
``He was the only person I saw in the Senate who could
change votes to his cause,'' said former Senate Majority
Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana. ``They just didn't come
any better than Ed Muskie.''
Over the years, thousands of words were written about
Muskie's fabled temper and his hours of solitary
contemplation. ``I asked Muskie about his temper--and he
lost his temper,'' went an old Washington saw.
But even this apparent short fuse, according to friends,
often was more a product of political strategy than pure
emotion. After once raising his voice during a Senate
subcommittee meeting, Muskie turned to a young aide who
seemed shocked by his outburst.
``You must understand, if you don't get angry and lose
your temper, you don't control the situation,'' Muskie
told the aide, John Martin, who went on to enjoy his own
colorful career as Speaker of the Maine House.
Muskie, too, could show signs of impish humor. While
running for reelection to the Blaine House, he once
entered a cocktail party at a Waterville country club by
sliding down a chute used to pass liquor to the bar.
``He slid down that thing when he came in,'' said
William ``Flash'' Flaherty, a longtime Democratic campaign
aide who first met Muskie as an aspiring Waterville
lawyer. And no matter what the campaign, Muskie loved to
hypnotize lobsters by stroking their tails, an old Yankee
trick that startled the outsiders who shadowed him on the
trail.
In 1966, when President Lyndon Johnson's Model Cities
proposal faced steep legislative obstacles, Muskie
explained to the President why the bill wouldn't work. He
set out to draft his own, a substitute that passed with
Muskie's parliamentary skill.
Two years later, Muskie came close to being second-in-
command at the White House after Hubert H. Humphrey chose
him to be his running mate. For months, the Senator
crisscrossed the country in a rented Boeing 727, dubbed
``The Downeast Yankee'' for the campaign.
The Democratic ticket, though, lost to Richard Nixon and
Spiro Agnew by a scant half-million votes out of more than
63 million cast.
Still, in that tumultuous year of 1968, Muskie impressed
political watchers by inviting hecklers to share the
platform with him. Despite the loss, his stock continued
to rise.
Although Muskie will go down in Maine history as one of
the State's most influential and respected politicians,
many outside the region are likely to remember him for the
1972 Presidential campaign, when his White House
aspirations melted in the New Hampshire snow.
The Senator was the favorite to win the Democratic
nomination to run against President Richard Nixon. Early
polls showed him leading the President, and Muskie vowed
not to allow his national ambition to alter his character.
``If I bend and twist to suit everyone, I'll be no more
than a pretzel,'' Muskie once said. ``I am what I am and
that's how they'll have to take me.''
Muskie's character was severely tested by the Nixon
reelection campaign's dirty tricks, including the infamous
``Canuck Letter'' in which the Senator was supposed to
have made racist remarks about French Canadians.
Campaigning in snowy New Hampshire, Muskie gave a speech
on the back of a flatbed truck to rebut charges by the
arch-conservative newspaper, the Manchester Union Leader,
about his wife. All agree it was an emotional speech, but
a few journalists reported that he had wept, thereby
portraying him as too unstable and weak for the
Presidency. Muskie always maintained that the ``tears''
were melting snowflakes.
The nomination was won by fellow Senator George McGovern
of South Dakota, who went on to lose to President Nixon.
It was the end of the Maine Senator's White House
aspirations; the closest he would come was when he played
the role of the chief executive for a 1983 ``Nightline''
program that portrayed a fictional international crisis.
Nixon, though, perceived Muskie as a potential political
threat for 1976. Years before the election, the
President's team began to spread word in Maine that the
Senator had become too enamored of national ambitions and
had lost touch with his constituency. After deciding in
1974 to run for reelection to the Senate in 1976, Muskie
opened field offices in Portland and Bangor, the first
Senator in Maine to do so.
Six years later, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned
in disagreement after President Jimmy Carter's failed
attempt to rescue the 53 American hostages in Iran by
military force. On April 29, 1980, the President turned to
Muskie, who by then had tired of congressional duties
after more than 20 years in the Senate. He entered the job
with little experience in foreign affairs.
Always ambitious, Muskie nevertheless said he had never
envisioned himself as leading the State Department.
``It's funny--of all the jobs I've been ambitious for,
this one never crossed my mind, Muskie once said.
Carter tapped Muskie in part because the President's
status with Congress was weak and the Senator had a
centrist, credible reputation, said Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Carter's national security adviser and a summer resident
of Northeast Harbor.
Because the President was in the midst of what would be
a losing reelection battle, Muskie handled his new duties
with caution and ruled out major changes. In fact,
Carter's political clout was so low that there was talk he
might even lose his party's nomination, and a number of
people began a Muskie-for-President movement. Though
flattered, Muskie campaigned relentlessly for the Carter-
Mondale ticket, which lost in a landslide to Ronald
Reagan.
As Secretary, Muskie frenetically negotiated to win the
release of the American hostages in Iran. They were set
free, however, only after Carter had officially left
power. ``I have never known any American leader who was
more highly qualified to be President of the United
States,'' Carter said Tuesday. ``His coolness under
pressure and his sound judgment helped him play a crucial
role in bringing all the American hostages home from Iran
to safety and freedom, and he was always careful to give
credit to others for this achievement.''
In a Bangor Daily News interview after leaving the
Government, Muskie said that Iran's refusal to release the
U.S. hostages was the final blow to Carter's reelection
hopes.
``It was like throwing a match onto a pile of dry
leaves,'' Muskie said in November 1980. ``Suddenly all of
the frustrations of the hostage crisis brought to focus
all of the frustrations of all of the other problems.''
Coincidentally, it was a similar issue that brought
Muskie back to the White House as a member of the Tower
Commission in 1986, which investigated reports that the
Reagan administration had traded arms for hostages in the
Iran-Contra scandal.
Four days before Ronald Reagan took office in January
1981, President Carter presented Muskie with the Medal of
Freedom. Soon afterward, Muskie returned to practice law
at a high-powered firm in Washington, DC, Chadbourne &
Parke, where he finally was able to become financially
secure.
``If I ever knew one could make so much money in the
private sector by doing so little,'' Muskie once joked to
a friend, ``I never would have got into politics.''
But politics was his life's calling, and it was Muskie's
relentless passion for people that kept him going. Former
aides and friends told of how they would try to cancel
campaign appearances for the exhausted Senator, only to be
told by the candidate that he couldn't disappoint those
who awaited him.
``He just had a tremendous sense of obligation to
people,'' said Clyde MacDonald, who worked for both Muskie
and Mitchell.
``If you come from a background like Ed Muskie,'' echoed
John Martin, ``I think you know what poor and
disadvantaged people are going through.''
Long after leaving politics, Muskie continued his life
of public service. In addition to his status as the elder
statesman of Maine politics, the former Secretary spent
considerable energy on improving access to the court
system for the State's poor.
Besides lending the prestige of his name to the Maine
Commission on Legal Needs by making speeches and talking
with the media, Muskie also offered advice on the art of
achieving political success.
``For me, he had a pretty good sense of how to move
something along,'' said a colleague on the commission,
Daniel Wathen, chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial
Court.
At one point, Wathen said, Muskie invited members of the
commission to his home in Kennebunk to talk strategy. ``He
was really passionate about those things,'' the judge
said.
As is usually the case with titans, Muskie's name has
been attached to numerous public buildings in his home
State, including the Federal building in Augusta.
But in 1982, when the city of Portland split over naming
its airport after him, Muskie asked the city to overturn
the honor.
Some residents complained about naming the airport after
a Democrat, while others fought the name change because
Muskie had closer ties to Waterville and Kennebunk. The
change was never made.
In recent years, Muskie kept in touch with the Maine
political scene and enjoyed gossiping about the coming
congressional races.
Freshman U.S. Representative John Baldacci of Bangor,
who first met Muskie as a boy, said he often turned to the
former Secretary for advice during the past year or so.
Maine's two Republican U.S. Senators, Olympia Snowe and
William Cohen, often sought advice from Muskie during
their own careers. The remaining years of Muskie's life
were devoted as well to ensuring the future well-being of
his wife, 13 years his junior.
Just days after Carter lost the 1980 election, Muskie
said he planned to remain near the Capital partly because
``the one thing I have to bear in mind is that I must
assume my wife is going to outlive me.''
``She's much younger than me,'' Muskie told the Bangor
Daily News. ``I have to start building a life that she can
continue.''
a
[From the Portland Press Herald, March 27, 1996]
Lofty Tributes Honor Solid, Humble Man; From Around the
State, People Fondly Recall Memories of Ed Muskie, A Man
Most Often Described as Lincolnesque
(By John Richardson)
Admirers from Presidents to college classmates offered
lofty tributes Tuesday to the big, modest man from Maine
known for restoring the State's Democratic Party and
protecting the Nation's environment.
Edmund S. Muskie's death early Tuesday stirred
reminiscences about a political giant who helped shape the
country as a longtime U.S. Senator and Secretary of State,
and about the humble son of a Rumford immigrant who liked
to swim in the Kennebunk surf, play golf and ``hypnotize''
lobsters.
Tall and lanky and armed with a dry wit, Muskie was
often described as Lincolnesque.
``There are two kinds of people in public life--
politicians and statesmen. And he was clearly a
statesman,'' said Robert Shepherd, a former Muskie aide
who lives in Brunswick.
Shepherd recalled Muskie's commanding presence, even
when simply entering a room. ``He could freeze people by
just looking at them.''
``I have never known any American leader who was more
highly qualified to be President of the United States,''
former President Jimmy Carter said in a prepared
statement. Muskie ran for the Democratic Presidential
nomination in 1972.
Carter said Muskie, as his Secretary of State in 1980,
played a crucial role in bringing home the American
hostages from Iran and ``was always careful to give credit
to others for this achievement.''
Statements of praise and condolences were faxed to
newspapers from public leaders around Maine and the rest
of the United States.
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole called Muskie ``a
patriot who always answered the call of his country.''
Governor Angus King, in a press conference Tuesday,
called Muskie an ``awesome character. . . . His
personality was too big to hide anything or be subtle. It
sort of feels like one of our mountains has been moved.''
Former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell, Muskie's protege
and friend, called him ``one of the most effective
legislators in our Nation's history and the greatest
public official in Maine's history.''
Mitchell and other admirers also offered some more
personal reflections about the man Tuesday.
``He personified the solidness and dependability of
Maine people, with understatement and common sense,'' said
Charles Micoleau, a Portland lawyer who served during the
1970s as Muskie's chief of staff.
Micoleau recalled how the Rumford native taught his son
how to hypnotize a lobster--a trick the Senator never
tired of performing before dinner audiences.
``By stroking a lobster in a certain way, you can get it
to sit up, and make it stationary in a vertical
position,'' explained Mitchell, who had seen his mentor do
it time and time again. ``He accompanied it with a kind of
humorous monologue, so it was quite entertaining.''
Mitchell and former Senator William D. Hathaway agreed
that Muskie's landmark legislation that heralded a new era
in environmental protection was likely to be remembered as
his greatest achievement, one that won him the nickname
``Mr. Clean.''
``Before it was a national cause or even well known,
environmental protection was Ed Muskie's passion,''
Mitchell said. ``Any Maine citizen who wants to appreciate
what Ed Muskie did need only drive to the nearest river.''
Part of Muskie's environmental awareness stemmed from
his having grown up in a polluted, paper-mill town before
the advent of clean air legislation. But it also reflected
his enjoyment of fishing and bird hunting, although in his
later years he was more apt to arm himself with a camera
than a shotgun.
He also took up golf. ``He did make a hole-in-one once
in Kennebunk,'' said Donald Larrabee, a longtime reporter
who covered Muskie's career and maintained a friendship in
retirement. ``He never got over telling people about it.''
Severin Beliveau, an Augusta lawyer and longtime friend,
said he witnessed Muskie's first attempt at downhill
skiing at Saddleback.
``Obviously, he had never skied before. But he was
undeterred and insisted on going to the top of the
mountain,'' said Beliveau. ``Any challenge--he was
determined.''
Muskie also won respect throughout his life for his
integrity.
``Of all the people I can think about in politics, and
no breath of scandal in all those years, that's a pretty
good record,'' Larrabee said.
``He was a good guy. He made friends easily,'' said Milt
Lindholm, a schoolmate at Bates College in the 1930s who
later became dean of admissions at Bates. ``He was a good
citizen, very constructive in every way. He was very
highly respected, probably one of the most-respected
students in the college.''
It also was at Bates where Muskie refined the debating
skills that earned him the respect of fellow Senators. He
took up debating in high school, in part to overcome his
shyness, which was still evident when he started at Bates.
``He was sort of a lanky, shy guy from Rumford, and he
worked very hard,'' said Ruth Wilson of Lewiston, who was
a fellow member of the Bates debating team. ``He was a big
man in stature and everything. He was genial, friendly and
warm.''
And he was a meticulous and convincing debater.
Sometimes he won arguments with his dry humor. ``His wit
was wonderful, and that carried a point a long way
sometimes,'' said Wilson.
Muskie had agreed to speak at the banquet during his
class's upcoming 60th year reunion at Bates in June.
Classmates were planning a tribute to Muskie.
As a television journalist in the 1980s, Governor King
profiled Muskie and was awed by his achievements.
``What was it about this guy who was the son of a Polish
immigrant tailor from Rumford that propelled him to the
level that he reached?'' King recalled Tuesday. He said it
was the same question posed by the political success of
former Senator Margaret Chase Smith, who died last year.
``And my conclusion was that they were both people who
were quintessentially themselves,'' he said. ``They didn't
pay attention to polls. They said what they thought, and
it happened to sync with what the people were thinking.''
Muskie, said King, ``was as authentic as they come.''
Larrabee said he talked to Muskie a few months ago when
the former Senator came to the funeral of Larrabee's wife.
Larrabee and Muskie got talking about an autobiography.
``He said, `I really have not pursued it the way I
should,' '' said Larrabee. Muskie did have an idea for a
theme, however.
``It's how politics have changed and that it's not as
much fun as it used to be,'' Larrabee recalled Muskie as
saying. ``He thought those were fun times.''
a
[From the Baltimore Sun, March 27, 1996]
Edmund Muskie Dies of Heart Failure; Distinguished Senator
Brought Zeal to Office
(By Jules Witcover)
WASHINGTON--Edmund Sixtus Muskie, the Maine Democrat who
ran unsuccessfully for Vice President in 1968 and for
President in 1972 and then capped a 21-year Senate career
as President Jimmy Carter's Secretary of State, died early
yesterday. He was 81.
Mr. Muskie died of heart failure after undergoing
surgery last week for a blocked artery in his leg.
``I have never known any American leader who was more
highly qualified to be President of the United States,''
Mr. Carter said yesterday. ``His coolness under pressure
and his sound judgment helped him play a crucial role in
bringing all the American hostages home from Iran to
safety and freedom, and he was always careful to give
credit to others for this achievements''
Mr. Muskie, who revitalized the Democratic Party in
Maine and served as its Governor before entering the
Senate in 1959, was a towering man of alternating moods of
calm and tempest, but known more for the latter.
In 1968, Mr. Muskie's reasonable demeanor as Hubert H.
Humphrey's running mate cast him in favorable contrast
with his sharp-tongued Republican counterpart, Governor
Spiro T. Agnew of Maryland. But he could not save the
Humphrey-Muskie ticket in a razor-thin loss to Richard M.
Nixon and Mr. Agnew.
Four years later, Mr. Muskie ran for the Democratic
Presidential nomination and was rated a front-runner until
a flare of emotion marred an unimpressive victory in the
New Hampshire primary and sent him down the road to
defeat.
Standing on a flatbed truck amid a snowstorm outside the
Manchester Union Leader newspaper, Mr. Muskie angrily
condemned remarks about his wife, Jane, by the newspaper's
publisher, William Loeb, and appeared to break down and
weep. He called Mr. Loeb ``a gutless coward,'' adding
``it's fortunate for him he's not on this platform beside
me.''
Those at the scene differed over whether tears or melted
snow slid down his face. But the impression spread that he
had lost control, raising questions about his reliability
under stress.
Although Mr. Muskie went on to win the New Hampshire
primary, with 46 percent of the vote to 37 percent for
Senator George McGovern, his showing fell short of the
standard set by his New Hampshire campaign manager, who
had said she would ``eat my hat'' if he failed to achieve
50 percent.
A week later, in the Florida primary, Mr. Muskie
finished fourth, behind Governor George Wallace of
Alabama, Mr. Humphrey and Senator Henry M. Jackson of
Washington. He lashed out at Mr. Wallace as ``a demagogue
of the worst possible kind.'' Mr. Muskie finished fourth
again in Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania, and effectively
bowed out.
In the end, it was Mr. Muskie's ambivalence about the
U.S. role in Vietnam, as much as any one emotional scene,
that was his undoing. As Mr. Humphrey's running mate in
1968, he, along with Mr. Humphrey, defended President
Lyndon B. Johnson's conduct of the war while privately, he
said later, he held doubts.
But it was the performance outside the New Hampshire
newspaper office that brought his touchy temperament to
view.
cogent persuader
At other times, Mr. Muskie was a man of great good
humor, judgment and decorum. He was, Senator Ernest F.
Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, said yesterday,
``perhaps the most cogent persuader on the floor of the
United States Senate.''
Mr. Muskie returned to the Senate after his failed
Presidential bid and served until April 1980, when Mr.
Carter named him Secretary of State to replace Cyrus
Vance, who had resigned after a failed attempt to rescue
U.S. hostages in Iran.
Mr. Muskie took over the unpromising diplomatic attempts
to win the hostages' release, which was not achieved until
just as Mr. Carter's term expired and President Ronald
Reagan took office.
He then entered private law practice in Washington and
continued until just before his death.
Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who served under
Mr. Muskie in the State Department, called him ``one of
the most distinguished American public servants of the
past half century.''
He hailed Mr. Muskie's work on economic sanctions
against the former Soviet Union after its invasion of
Afghanistan, on the release of the U.S. hostages in Iran,
and on implementing the Camp David accords between Egypt
and Israel.
It was Mr. Muskie's Vice Presidential candidacy in 1968
that put him on course for his own 1972 Presidential
quest. His call for unity and a lowering of voices won him
acclaim, especially for his handling of anti-war
protesters who heckled him.
While not breaking entirely with Mr. Johnson, he pledged
efforts to end the Vietnam War and pointedly criticized
both Chicago police and demonstrators during the
disastrous Democratic Convention at which he and Mr.
Humphrey were nominated.
In the 1970 congressional election campaign, with Vice
President Agnew attacking Democratic ``radical liberals''
and Mr. Nixon sounding the theme of law and order, the
Democrats turned to Mr. Muskie to deliver a calm reply.
``There are those who seek to turn our common distress
to partisan advantage not by offering better solutions,
but by empty threat and malicious slander,'' he said.
``They imply that Democratic candidates for high office,
men who have courageously pursued their convictions in the
service of the republic in war and in peace, that these
men actually favor violence and champion the wrongdoer.
That is a lie, and the American people know it is a lie.''
That speech propelled Mr. Muskie into position as the
Democrats' front-runner for the 1972 Presidential
nomination, a position he retained into the fateful New
Hampshire primary.
zeal for public service
After Mr. Muskie's retirement, he often reflected on his
1972 campaign with regret and good humor, recalling his
bantering with reporters but always denying, with a wry
grin, that he ever lost his temper. Nevertheless, he could
not deny the zeal for public service that marked his long
career and made him one of his era's most distinguished,
if mercurial, political figures.
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole said that he remembered
Mr. Muskie saying in a speech: ``You have the God-given
right to kick the Government around--don't hesitate to do
so.'' That remark was pure Ed Muskie. Blunt. To the point.
And leaving no doubt that Americans should expect the best
of their public officials.
``And the best is just what the people of Maine and
America received from Ed Muskie during a public service
career that spanned five decades.''
In addition to his wife of 47 years, Mr. Muskie is
survived by two sons, three daughters and seven
grandchildren. Burial will be Saturday in Arlington
National Cemetery after a funeral Mass in the Little
Flower Church in Bethesda, MD.
a
[From the Portland Press Herald, March 27, 1996]
A Leader in the Best Sense; Edmund Muskie, U.S. Senator,
Statesman, Dies at 81
(By John Richardson)
the rumford native revived maine's democratic party,
crafted national environmental laws and ran for president
Edmund S. Muskie, who began life in Rumford as the son
of an immigrant tailor and rose to become a politician and
statesman of international stature, died Tuesday morning
in a hospital in Washington, DC.
Muskie, who was 81, revived Maine's dormant Democratic
Party, served as Maine Governor and, during 22 years as a
U.S. Senator, crafted landmark Federal environmental laws.
He ran for Vice President and President before serving
President Jimmy Carter as Secretary of State.
Through his years of public service, Muskie earned a
national reputation as a modest, honest statesman. His
death brought statements of tribute from Presidents
Clinton and Carter, as well as former colleagues from
Capitol Hill and the Maine State House.
Clinton said Muskie was ``a leader in the best sense. He
spoke from his heart and acted with conviction.''
He had a dry Maine humor and a temper that would become
a stubborn legacy. And he had a distinct look, with a
craggy face--compared by some to the Maine coast--and a
lanky 6-foot-4-inch frame.
Muskie was admitted to Georgetown University Medical
Center last week for surgery to bypass a blockage in an
artery in his right leg. While recuperating from the
surgery, he suffered a heart attack last Thursday and
underwent triple bypass surgery the same day.
He would have celebrated his 82nd birthday on Thursday.
Muskie is survived by his wife of 47 years, Jane, three
daughters and two sons.
The funeral will be held at 11 a.m. Saturday at the
Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda, MD. Burial will
follow at Arlington National Cemetery. Calling hours are
scheduled for 2-4 p.m. and 7-9 p.m. Friday at Gawlers &
Sons Funeral Home in Washington, DC.
potential evident early
Edmund Sixtus Muskie was born in Rumford on March 28,
1914. His father, Stephen, a respected tailor, arrived
from Poland bearing the name Marciszewski. Immigration
officials shortened it to Muskie. His mother, Josephine,
was from Buffalo, NY.
Muskie's potential was evident early. A 1932 yearbook
from Stephens High School in Rumford calls the gangly
young man ``a public man of light and leading.'' He
competed in track and basketball but excelled at debating
and academics--he graduated at the top of his class.
Muskie worked his way through Bates College as a waiter
in the dining hall and a summer dishwasher and bellhop at
Narragansett-by-the-Sea in Kennebunk. He graduated cum
laude, then earned a law degree from Cornell University in
1939 and started his law practice in Waterville.
During World War II, he served as a junior officer on
destroyer escorts in the Atlantic and Pacific. Afterward,
he returned to Waterville to resume his law practice.
In 1946, a group of Democrats talked Muskie into running
for the State legislature. He won three terms and became
the minority leader of the party what there was of it. The
party held few seats and was factionalized and impotent
except for the political appointments dealt out by the
local party bosses.
In 1948, he married Jane Gray of Waterville. They had
five children.
In 1954, Muskie and other Democrats tried to line up a
candidate to run against Governor Burton Cross.
It was considered a sacrificial effort, and when no one
volunteered Muskie dutifully agreed to run.
Together with Frank M. Coffin, a Lewiston lawyer who
later became a Congressman and judge, Muskie unified the
party. They exploited a complacent and vulnerable
Republican Party, introduced Muskie to voters as a good,
capable man and surprised all the experts. Muskie became
the first Democratic Governor in 20 years.
His victory jump-started the party, and Muskie earned a
reputation as determined and statesmanlike. He was
reelected by a large majority in 1956 after another hard-
fought grass-roots campaign.
Muskie said he went home one time during that race and
was greeted at the door by his wife. He automatically
stuck out his hand and asked her, ``How are all the folks
up your way today?''
As Governor, he learned how to steer bills through the
Republican legislature, creating a department of economic
development and boosting State subsidies for education.
In 1958, he became the first popularly elected
Democratic Senator in Maine's history. He again used his
personal warmth in a grass-roots campaign.
Muskie once reckoned he shook 30,000 hands and logged so
much mileage through the Maine wilderness that ``I'd be
elected right now if pine trees could vote.''
The win kindled his national prominence. A Look magazine
article about him that year proclaimed Muskie the miracle
man from Maine. The article described how a ``band of
brainy political amateurs have breathed new life into
Maine's languishing Democrats'' led by Muskie, a ``6-foot-
4, Lincolnesque, small-town lawyer'' who ``has easily
become the most popular politician'' in Maine.
Praised for his ``lofty and non-partisan approach'' to
politics, Muskie, one observer said, viewed political
strife ``the way Victorians regard sex as not quite
proper.''
wit and independence
With his bow ties, warm down-home manner, intellectual
gifts and growing eloquence, Muskie became a presence in
the Senate.
In 1959, one story goes, the freshman Senator got some
advice from Lyndon B. Johnson, the majority leader. And
Johnson, who counseled Muskie on the difficulties facing a
freshman, got a taste of Muskie's Yankee wit and
independence.
``Many times, Ed, you won't know how you're going to
vote until the clerk who's calling the roll gets to the
M's,'' Johnson said. Then Johnson described an upcoming
bill that he clearly expected Muskie to support. ``Well,
Ed, you don't seem to have much to say,'' Johnson prodded.
``Lyndon,'' responded Muskie, ``the clerk hasn't gotten
to the M's yet.''
His independence apparently cost Muskie his top
committee choices. Johnson later made him chairman of a
new subcommittee on air and water pollution, where he made
his mark crafting landmark environmental legislation,
including the 1963 Clean Air Act and 1965 Water Quality
Act.
His environmental concerns grew from a strong love of
the outdoors, a feeling he shared with many Mainers whose
home State had felt the effects of polluted air and water.
He liked to fish in his State's streams, hunt in its woods
and swim in its cold ocean.
Despite the early friction, Muskie soon earned the
admiration of Johnson for his skill in the Senate.
In 1966, he helped redraft and push through Johnson's
Model Cities program, offering an impassioned speech on
its behalf that Senator Robert Kennedy called ``the best
speech I ever heard in the Senate.''
``The pages of history are full of the tales of those
who sought the promise of the city and found only
despair,'' Muskie told the Senate. ``From the book of Job
to Charles Dickens to James Baldwin, we have read of the
ills of the cities. Our cities contain within themselves
the flowers of man's genius and the nettles of his
failures.''
brought balance to ticket
Having helped rebuild Maine's political system, Muskie
helped build the State's political stature nationwide.
In 1968, Hubert Humphrey, Democratic nominee for
President, chose Muskie as his Vice Presidential running
mate. Muskie was as surprised as anyone.
``I just didn't think . . . it was likely that a Vice
Presidential candidate from a small State in New England
would add very much to Hubert's chances,'' he said years
later.
Humphrey knew Muskie as a hard worker and ``a senator's
senator'' who was respected by colleagues. He also brought
balance to the ticket as a Polish-American Catholic from
the East.
Muskie, who campaigned directly against the Republican
Vice Presidential nominee, Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew,
used his Maine-grown political skills to emerge as a
popular national leader.
In September 1968, Maine's junior Senator was speaking
to students in Washington, PA, when someone in the
audience tried to interrupt him. Muskie invited the
heckler to the platform.
Then--still alone and having the students' full
attention--he warmed the audience with his story: son of a
Polish immigrant tailor in Rumford, distinguished scholar,
Waterville lawyer, Navy veteran, State representative,
Governor, U.S. Senator.
And in that day of growing cynicism, Muskie lauded the
political system's openness to anyone who chose to get
involved.
``It's as simple as that,'' Muskie later explained about
handling hecklers. ``Let the other fellow speak first.
What we need is two-way communication. A willingness to
listen as well as talk.''
Muskie was given much credit for the closeness of the
Presidential race, which had been considered safe for
Richard Nixon. Some maintained that the Democratic ticket
might have won with one more week in the campaign.
Even Humphrey called Muskie the ``real winner'' of the
campaign. ``In politics, I've known people who were
brilliant, clever, but he has qualities that are more
important--intuition, judgment, wisdom,'' Humphrey said.
Muskie caught the public's imagination as a rugged man
of integrity and was considered a top candidate for the
party's 1972 Presidential nomination, especially after the
Chappaquiddick affair shattered Edward Kennedy's fortunes.
Muskie won reelection to the Senate in 1970 with more
than 60 percent of the vote.
He entered the 1972 race for the Presidential nomination
as the odds-on-favorite.
But, while campaigning in New Hampshire, the legendary
temper usually reserved for his staff and colleagues
erupted in public.
Standing on a flatbed truck as snow fell outside the
offices of the conservative Manchester Union Leader
newspaper, Muskie shook with anger and blasted William
Loeb, the publisher, for reprinting an unflattering
article about Muskie's wife and for publishing a letter
alleging that Muskie had made derogatory remarks about
Americans of French-Canadian descent. (The letter later
proved to be a forgery circulated by Nixon's reelection
committee.)
Some reporters wrote that Muskie cried, though he denied
it. The incident was interpreted as a sign of weakness and
marked the symbolic collapse of his hopes. The nomination
ultimately went to Senator George McGovern of South
Dakota.
``Going down in front of that Union Leader building was
a mistake I vowed years earlier not to make,'' Muskie told
the Press Herald when he turned eighty, 2 years ago. ``It
was a whopper.''
Despite his long and distinguished career in the Senate,
Muskie still is known to many for the famous loss of his
composure and the collapse of his Presidential bid.
After he withdrew from the Presidential race, Muskie
reportedly turned down an offer from McGovern to be his
running mate. He said his family ``had enough of that kind
of burden to carry.''
becomes budget watchdog
Muskie returned to the Senate, where, in 1974, he was
picked to chair the Senate Budget Committee, a powerful
new committee overseeing the congressional budget-making
process. During the mid-1970s, he emerged as a champion of
fiscal discipline.
In his new role as budget watchdog, he chastised his
colleagues for budget-busting legislation and appealed for
curbs on spending to control inflation and rein in the
Federal deficit. On occasion, Muskie's battles to restrict
veterans' benefits or school-lunch subsidies drew scorn
from fellow liberals and unaccustomed praise from
conservatives.
But Muskie, who viewed the budget process as his final
Senate legacy, never flinched from a challenge that forced
him into the role of legislative pinchpenny.
``Too often in the past,'' he said, ``Members of
Congress have won reelection with a two-part strategy:
Talk like Scrooge on the campaign trail. Vote like Santa
Claus on the Senate floor.''
In 1979, he became chairman of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations. The next year, he resigned from the
Senate after 22 years to become Secretary of State.
President Carter chose Muskie to replace Cyrus Vance,
who resigned in protest over the failed attempt to rescue
American hostages in Iran. The Cabinet appointment
culminated Muskie's political career. He later told
friends it was his favorite job, even though it was one he
never longed for.
After Carter lost the White House to Ronald Reagan in
1980, Muskie practiced law in Washington as a senior
partner in the firm of Chadbourne & Parke. He united
American investors and the governments of China, Russia,
India and some South American countries interested in
developing oil and other energy sources.
His Washington office was decorated with pictures of
Abraham Lincoln and Hubert Humphrey.
In 1987, at the request of President Reagan, he co-
authored the Tower Commission report on secret U.S. arms
sales to Iran and the diversion of money to Nicaraguan
rebels.
Muskie continued to be consulted by policy-makers,
though perhaps not as much as he would have liked.
``There's nothing as old as an old politician,'' he
quipped last year.
A Mainer at heart, Muskie also maintained a home in
Kennebunk. He also was a frequent visitor to the campus of
Bates, where he served as a longtime member of the board
of trustees.
Muskie didn't dwell on the losses in 1968 or 1972.
But in 1992, with Democrats returning to the White
House, Muskie may have felt a pang or two.
Tim Maga, a professor at Bentley College in Waltham, MA,
interviewed Muskie in his office that year for a book
about Carter. After a couple of hours of recounting world
politics, Maga said, Muskie took him on a tour of his
office.
``He takes me to his back window'' that looked out on a
corner of the White House. ``He looks at me with kind of
this tear in his eye and says, `This is the closest I'll
ever get to that place.' ''
a
[From the Sun-Journal, Lewiston, ME, March 27, 1996]
Presidents, Politicians Remember `Legend,' `Hero'
(By the Associated Press)
Reaction to the death Tuesday of former Secretary of
State and U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie:
President Clinton: ``A dedicated legislator and caring
public servant, Senator Muskie was a leader in the best
sense. He spoke from his heart and acted with conviction.
Generations to come will benefit from his steadfast
commitment to protecting the land.''
Former President Carter: ``I have never known any
American leader who was more highly qualified to be
President of the United States. His coolness under
pressure and his sound judgment helped him play a crucial
role in bringing all the American hostages home from Iran
to safety and freedom, and he was always careful to give
credit to others for this achievement.''
Former Senator George Mitchell: ``This is a sad day for
the people of Maine and the Nation. They have lost a great
leader. I have lost a close and valued friend. Before it
was a national cause or even well known, environmental
protection was Ed Muskie's passion. To me he was a mentor
and a hero as well as a close personal friend. Just about
everything I know about government and politics I learned
from Ed Muskie.''
Former Senator George McGovern (D-SD): ``We have been
cordial friends and mutual admirers over the last quarter
of a century. I'm going to miss him keenly.''
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole: ``During a speech in
the 1968 Presidential campaign, Senator Edmund Muskie who
was the Democrat nominee for Vice-President, told his
audience, `You have the God-given right to kick the
Government around--don't hesitate to do so.' That remark
was pure Ed Muskie. Blunt. To the point. And leaving no
doubt that Americans should expect the best of their
public officials.''
Senator William Cohen (R-ME): ``He was steady in a
crisis. He was plain-spoken and honest. He was fair-minded
and independent. He never forgot his humble origins. The
respect I held for Senator Muskie was based in his
intelligence, his intellectual integrity and his
unflinching courage in taking on the toughest issues of
the day.''
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME): ``With his passing, Maine
and the Nation have lost another legend. Senator Muskie
was one of Maine's most important historical figures of
the 20th century, whose dynamic leadership dramatically
reshaped the State's political landscape.''
Maine Governor Angus King: ``The shadow cast by Ed
Muskie will continue to stand watch and protect the
quality of life for all Americans for the rest of my
lifetime and beyond. Few people can honestly say they
helped shape history, that their work and their influence
changed the course of their State and their country. But
Ed Muskie could.''
Former Maine Governor Kenneth Curtis: ``We've lost a
great friend. Muskie has secured a position in history as
one of the really great national leaders from the State of
Maine.''
U.S. Representative James Longley Jr. (R-ME): ``There
was nobody who had a higher reputation in the State for
integrity.''
U.S. Representative John Baldacci (D-ME): ``Ed Muskie
was a leader for Maine and a statesman for the Nation. He
was a person of great intellect and common sense. Senator
Muskie's devotion to Maine and his dedication to improving
the quality of life for all Americans will long be
remembered and appreciated.''
Jerry Plante, who served in the Maine House in 1957-58
while Muskie was Governor: ``The one thing he used to
teach us was the ultimate purpose of a political party was
not to win elections, but to compete with ideas and
solutions for those we serve.''
Bob Monks, who lost the 1978 Senate election to Muskie,
and is running for the Senate nomination this year:
``Muskie is not only a great political figure in Maine's
history, but he was an extraordinary man. He earned the
respect of Maine people for his tireless and effective
advocacy. His leadership on environmental legislation had
a tremendous effect on the Nation.''
a
[From the Bangor Daily News, March 27, 1996]
Ed Muskie
(By A. Mark Woodward)
The trail is long from the back country of Maine to
Washington, but the State has earned a reputation for
producing political figures of national stature who follow
the difficult but well-marked road to the Capital.
Today's candidates know the way thanks to the man who
blazed that path in the modern era: Edmund Sixtus Muskie,
Governor, Senator and Secretary of State.
Old school politically, a man of the party and the
people, Muskie embodied loyalty and persistence. His 40-
year political career taught lessons on the value of
learning from defeat, the strength of sound instinct, and
the enduring value of personal integrity.
It was there from the beginning. A young lawyer whose
practice withered after he fell off a ladder painting his
house, the future father of the Clean Air Act chose
politics over corporate law because he wouldn't root his
family in the mill odor in his native Rumford.
Champion of campaign-finance reform out of necessity and
before its time, Muskie was the surprise victor in his
1954 contest for the governorship, but more stunning was
the financial cost, just $14,000. Bringing his candidacy
directly to the people, navigating it along back roads and
bounding, through potholes in a 1949 Lincoln, this one-on-
one approach set the style and tone for future campaigns.
A strong partner on the 1968 ticket with Hubert
Humphrey, Muskie's own run for President 4 years later
dissolved in the New Hampshire primary, in ``tears'' of
snow melted by a heated exchange with the publisher of the
Manchester Union Leader.
Fittingly, his greatest achievements grew out of
adversity. Muskie's independence, his refusal to bend when
he knew he was right put him in early conflict with
Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson.
Consigned to oblivion on the Senate Public Works
Committee, Muskie used it as the platform for his
signature Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
Confident but never arrogant, Muskie left the Senate to
serve his President as Secretary of State. He did it
without public reluctance, and later looked back with no
regret. He knew it was time to relinquish the opportunity
to a younger generation of leader. Giving up the seat was
not without risk for his Democratic Party, but that only
deepened the personal satisfaction when his 1972
Presidential campaign manager and longtime protege, George
Mitchell, rose so splendidly to the occasion.
Appointed by Governor Joe Brennan to complete Muskie's
term, Mitchell in 1982 maintained his mentor's record of
large pluralities when he handily beat David Emery with
just more than 60 percent of the vote. Muskie had broken
the 60 percent barrier against Robert Monks in 1976, Neil
Bishop in 1970 and Clifford McIntire in 1964.
Reflecting on the choice he made to abandon a long,
prestigious Senate career to stand briefly with President
Jimmy Carter, Muskie years later observed: ``You live that
part of your life and then when it comes time to do
something else you do something else.''
Before he left public life, Ed Muskie did it all. He
handled failure with dignity. He tried and succeeded in a
political career that binds his State, his countrymen and
their history.
a
[From the Portland Press Herald, March 27, 1996]
Muskie Brought Glory to His State and Nation; Maine Shaped
His Voice and His Character and Never Let Go
(Editorial)
Eighty-two years ago this Thursday a child was born in
Rumford who was destined to grow into a man with a
million-dollar smile and a priceless mind and heart.
It is the Nation's loss, not his, that Edmund Sixtus
Muskie never served Americans as their President.
Fortunately, it can be our pride as a State that this
man of integrity, wit, passion and temper served Maine and
his country with distinction for half a century.
Such greatness does not come along very often.
America's air and water are cleaner because Ed Muskie
sponsored and astutely steered to passage the Nation's
first major pollution control laws. They are the Clean Air
Act of 1963 and the Water Quality Act of 1965. As
President Clinton said, on hearing of Muskie's death
Tuesday, ``Generations to come will benefit from his
steadfast commitment to protecting the land.''
The Federal budget, too, is a more open, reflective and
decipherable document because Muskie founded and shaped
the Senate Committee on the Budget. He served as its
initial chairman from 1974 to 1980.
U.S. credibility abroad is sounder because of the
integrity Muskie brought to foreign policy. He did so
through long years in the Senate and, in 1980 and early
1981, as Secretary of State, working to resolve the
American hostage crisis in Iran, under President Jimmy
Carter.
Yet these achievements almost didn't happen at all.
A Waterville lawyer, Muskie first won election to the
Maine House of Representatives in 1946. It was a time, the
late Representative Louis Jalbert liked to say, when
Democrats in the Legislature could caucus in a phone
booth, with plenty of room left over.
Because of Muskie, that would not soon be the case
again.
Elected Governor in 1954, the first Democrat to hold the
office in 20 years, Muskie revitalized his party. Equally
important, he provided the model on which succeeding
generations interested in public service, such as George
Mitchell, would mold themselves.
In 1958, however, Governor Muskie, then 43 years old,
declined to run for a third term. Married, with a young
family and limited means, Muskie stood at a personal
crossroads.
``Either I decide to seek a life career in public office
or I return to private pursuits,'' Muskie said. ``I
refrain from announcing a final choice at this time simply
because I truly have not yet been able to assure myself as
to whether I can continue in public life and also give
responsible attention to the needs of my family.''
Soon, however, he chose the riskier path. He went on to
run for and win the first of four terms in the U.S.
Senate. With that initial victory, in 1958, came an
avalanche of national attention.
Muskie was a political oddity--the first Democrat Maine
had ever sent to the U.S. Senate. He was also uniquely
well-suited to a new, all-pervasive medium, television.
Television conveyed the lanky, big-boned figure from Maine
with the measured voice and gift for plain speaking to
Americans eager to discover in their own time a greatness
seen once in Abraham Lincoln.
In both public and private life, until the heart attack
that ended his life, Muskie worked hard not to disappoint
them. Few American statesmen would stand taller, or
exhibit greater integrity when tested over time.
Muskie gave his best, whether it was to counsel
restraint on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to enact
President Lyndon Johnson's Model Cities program or, more
recently, to focus public attention on the legal needs of
the poorest people in Maine.
Nor would Muskie disappoint his family.
Applauded as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate
under Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Muskie vigorously pursued
the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972. Four
months into the campaign, he withdrew, after mounting an
emotional defense of his beloved wife, Jane, in the bitter
snow of New Hampshire.
Like a compass, his integrity held true to Maine, his
magnetic north, throughout a long and public life.
a
[From the Sun-Journal, March 27, 1996]
Maine Mourns Loss of `Giant'
(By Liz Chapman)
statesman edmund s. muskie dead of heart attack at age 81
AUGUSTA--Edmund S. Muskie died early Tuesday morning in
a Washington DC, hospital, leaving behind a wife, five
children and a remarkable record of public service to the
people of Maine and America.
A Democrat from start to finish, Muskie dedicated his
political career to helping the poor and improving the
environment. He was a visionary with a big heart and a
healthy temper who, as a Presidential candidate in 1972,
was criticized for spending too much time talking about
the issues.
``The loss of Senator Muskie is the loss of a giant,''
said Governor Angus King.'' It sort of feels like one of
Maine's mountains has been moved.''
Muskie is credited with almost single-handedly
resurrecting the Democratic Party in Maine when he
defeated incumbent Republican Governor Burton Cross in
1954 by 22,000 votes, becoming the first Democratic
Governor in 20 years.
After two terms in the Blaine House, Muskie was elected
to the U.S. Senate in 1958 as the State's first ever
popularly elected Democratic Senator.
He would remain Maine's Senator until 1980, when then
President Jimmy Carter asked him to serve as Secretary of
State.
``It's a sad day for a lot of Mainers,'' said longtime
Muskie friend Joseph Brennan, a former Governor and
Congressman.
``He's been an institution, truly, in the State of
Maine,'' Brennan said.
President Bill Clinton remembered Muskie Tuesday in a
statement calling him ``a leader in the best sense. He
spoke from his heart and acted with conviction.
Generations to come will benefit from his steadfast
commitment to protecting the land.''
Muskie 81, died of a heart attack while recovering from
surgery at Georgetown University Hospital in the Nation's
Capital, where he continued to practice law after ending
his distinguished political career in 1981.
Muskie will be buried Saturday in Arlington National
Cemetery in Arlington VA, after a funeral Mass in the
Little Flower Church in Bethesda, MD.
a happy childhood
Muskie was born on Knox Street in Rumford on March 28,
1914, the second of six children born to Stephen and
Josephine ``Josie'' Muskie.
The son of an immigrant, Edmund Sixtus Muskie grew up in
a mill town that didn't always appreciate his Polish
ancestry (immigration officials shortened his father's
name from Marciszewski). But he downplayed what was widely
reported in the media as the ``pain of prejudice'' he
suffered as a boy.
``I had as healthy and happy childhood and family life
as a boy could wish,'' Muskie said years after his father
died.
He recalled working in his father's tailor shop on
Exchange Street and hearing spirited debates between the
elder Muskie and some of his customers.
``His opinions were worth more to him than his income,''
Muskie said. ``Pa wasn't cranky; he was just intense. I
guess he and I were somewhat alike--he had a temper, but
for the most part he controlled it.''
Muskie admitted to being shy as a youngster, but
recalled that his intense interest in high school helped
him overcome his quiet ways. He found new friends and
became ``totally engaged with my courses.'' He aspired to
attend college and found high school ``an exciting time.''
After graduating from Stephens High School in Rumford,
Muskie attended Bates College in Lewiston, which he called
his ``first step in the outside world,'' graduating in
1936.
He studied law at Cornell University Law School in
Ithaca, NY, graduating cum laude in 1939.
He taught at Stephens as a substitute teacher while
waiting to take his bar exams and, in 1940, established
his law practice in Waterville.
He met and married his wife of 47 years, Jane, not long
after being discharged from the U.S. Army where he served
during World War II in the Atlantic and Asiatic-Pacific
Theaters from 1942 to 1945.
a career of politics
``It's a tough game they play in politics,'' Muskie told
well-wishers during his 80th birthday party in March 1994.
And he knew the game well.
Muskie began his political career in the Maine House in
1946, when Republicans outnumbered Democrats 127-24. He
served three terms before running for Governor in 1954.
In his inaugural address as Governor in 1955, Muskie
called for creation of a new industrial development
agency, increased education funding and money to improve
Maine hospitals.
He was easily reelected Governor in 1956 and enjoyed
broad support for his political agenda, getting 90 percent
of his initiatives passed.
Muskie won election to the U.S. Senate in 1958 and would
serve three-plus terms before resigning in May 1980 to
accept the position of Secretary of State in the Carter
administration.
Hardworking, opinionated, outspoken and fair, Muskie
wasted little time building his reputation in Washington.
History has already judged him as the pioneer of
environmental protection, a ``Capitol Hill powerhouse''
who used his large frame and high intelligence to push
through the landmark water and air acts of the 1960s and
70s.
``He didn't wait for an issue to coalesce before
leading. He was a true leader,'' said Severin Beliveau,
another Rumford native who advised Muskie during his
failed 1972 Presidential bid and who served as chairman of
the Maine Democratic Party from 1968 to 1972.
``He would take a position and then worry about whether
people would follow him or not,'' Beliveau said.
Muskie believed that to destroy the environment was to
destroy the economy and future of the Nation.
But he was not a zealot about the environment. In
October 1977, Muskie assailed Maine environmentalists for
their opposition to the Dickey-Lincoln hydroelectric
project proposed for the St. John River at Fort Kent.
``I think it's time to provide some opportunities for
people to work, not canoe, down the St. John,'' Muskie
said to widespread criticism.
``Senator Muskie was terribly patient and terribly
persistent in seeking to enact environmental legislation
because he believed the legislation was in the public
interest and in the interest of Maine,'' said longtime
Muskie aide Estelle Lavoie, who remembers the intense
opposition of industry to Muskie's trailblazing air and
water laws.
Lavoie helped Muskie resolve problems for Maine
constituents, working for him from 1973 until he resigned
his Senate seat in 1980.
``I remember a man of great intelligence, an iron will
and the kind of patience and persistence necessary to
succeed in the legislative process,'' she said. ``And a
man who cared deeply about the people of Maine.''
By 1968, when Hubert Humphrey tapped Muskie as his Vice
Presidential nominee, the Maine Senator had cemented his
reputation as a hardheaded and courageous lawmaker.
Beliveau recalled driving Muskie to the office of
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in 1968, just prior to the
Democratic Convention in Chicago, and learning later that
Daley told Humphrey if he wanted to carry Illinois, he
would have to nominate Muskie as VP.
Beliveau confirmed Muskie had a temper--and used it. But
he thinks it was one of Muskie's strengths, not foibles.
``He had very strong feelings and he wasn't reluctant to
express himself,'' Beliveau said. ``You challenged him at
your peril. I think it was one of his strengths. He had
strong convictions and he expressed them without worrying
about the political repercussions.''
Muskie championed major concerns other than
environmental protection before they were politically
correct; universal health care, for instance, and the need
to balance the Federal budget.
``Some people didn't understand the foresight he had,''
said former Governor Kenneth Curtis.
Muskie spoke against tuition tax credits in August 1978
as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, although the
credits were popular on the Hill and within his own party.
``I think we underestimate the citizens we represent if
we believe that what they really want is another big dose
of deficits in the name of tuition assistance,'' Muskie
argued.
In a speech before the National Conference of State
Legislators in March 1979, when the Federal deficit was
less than $30 billion, Muskie railed against spending
money the country didn't have.
``For 43 of the past 50 years, our Federal budget has
been in deficit,'' he said. ``That is not a gratifying
statistic. Though many of those deficits were caused by
war--and most of the others by depression or economic
downturn--some were provided by imprudent Federal spending
policies and poor fiscal decision-making. There is no
excuse for that.''
But Muskie again bucked the popular tide of the day,
speaking out against a constitutional amendment for a
balanced budget, warning that an ``abrupt move'' to
balance the Federal books would lead to a radical hike in
taxes or a dramatic cut in spending.
``A harsh prescription of that nature is certain to
aggravate the disease,'' he said.
the 1972 campaign
The story of Muskie's life is incomplete without
remembering his bid for the Democratic nomination for
President in 1972--the stuff of political legend.
The official announcement of his nomination was anti-
climatic on January 4, when he spent $32,000 to buy the
final 10 minutes of ``The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour'' to
declare his candidacy.
Anti-climatic because he was seen as the frontrunner for
the nomination for months before the official declaration.
``I am seeking the Presidency . . . not merely to change
Presidents, but to change the country,'' Muskie told
Americans. ``I intend to lead--to ask you to make America
what it was to Abraham Lincoln--``The last best hope of
mankind.'' I intend to ask you to try--and to be willing
to try again if we fail. And I intend to ask everyone of
you to pay a fair share of the costs of a decent
society.''
But what had started the previous summer as a gloriously
bright and hopeful campaign steadily sagged under the
weight of media criticism and, ultimately, alleged dirty
tricks by the Nixon White House.
``(It) still feels like a fairy tale that a humble man
from a small mill town has risen to such heights,''
Josephine Muskie said of her son before his bright
campaign dimmed and finally died.'
``Muskie seems to have nomination sewed'' read a bold
headline on January 27, 1972, just a few days before
Muskie would travel to New Hampshire to defend his
reputation--and his wife's--from attacks by the publisher
of the Manchester Union Leader.
Standing in front of the newspaper office in a snow
squall, Muskie castigated publisher William Loeb as ``a
gutless coward . . . who doesn't walk (but) crawls.''
Muskie was livid that Loeb had printed the now infamous
``Canuck letter,'' in which a Florida man named Paul
Morrison claimed Muskie had insulted French Americans in
New England during a speech in Florida.
Loeb had also reprinted unflattering comments from
Newsweek magazine about Muskie's wife--comments Newsweek
had picked up from yet another publication.
Beliveau, who met Muskie in Manchester that February
morning, remembered that the candidate was angry and
tense, but determined to challenge Loeb on his own turf.
Joining Muskie and Beliveau for a breakfast meeting that
day was the late Louie Jalbert of Lewiston and George
Mitchell, who would replace Muskie when he stepped down in
1980.
``He was determined he was going to challenge Loeb for
his unkind and unfounded comments about his wife and also
for being a demagogue, in effect,'' Beliveau said.
``He was very tense, very upset. He was determined to
protect his wife's name and reputation and to do what no
other politician had ever done in New Hampshire and that
was to challenge Loeb in his back yard,'' Beliveau said.
Muskie, in a television interview many years later,
would admit he made a mistake. For while some people
appreciated his anger and desire to defend himself and his
wife, others believed his outburst on the steps of the
Union Leader office illustrated an inability to harness
and control his temper.
Some people worried that if Muskie couldn't take the
criticism of a newspaper owner, he wasn't a good candidate
to run the country.
As he stood in the snow that morning, his voice cracked
with emotion and journalists rushed to their typewriters
to report that Muskie had cried.
His support continued to slip after the Manchester
incident and he officially quite the race in July, though
he pulled out of active campaigning in April.
``Obviously I feel a sense of disappointment,'' Muskie
said. ``I don't feel a sense of loss. It's been an
opportunity to grow and I look forward with optimism.''
In September of 1972, the Union Leader launched an
investigation into the ``Canuck letter,'' saying it had
been unable to verify that Paul Morrison ever existed.
Later investigations found that the letter had been
written by Nixon's reelection staff.
Muskie continued his career after the 1972 race, earning
continuing praise and respect from every quarter of
Washington.
In May 1980, then President Jimmy Carter asked Muskie to
serve as Secretary of State, just days after the failed
negotiations to free the American hostages in Iran.
Brennan, Governor at that time, got a call from Muskie
asking him to meet him at the Brunswick Naval Air Station.
The two men met the next day and Muskie told him the
news. Brennan said Muskie had two concerns: that Maine
people would be angry if he gave up his Senate seat early;
and the fate of his Washington staff should he accept the
President's offer.
Once Brennan assured him he thought Mainers would be
proud that Muskie would be Secretary of State, Muskie
asked the Governor for a favor.
``He asked that whoever I appointed (to fill the Senate
seat) would keep his people on staff for 6 months,''
Brennan recalled. ``He was concerned because they all had
families and obligations and they thought (Muskie) had 3
more years'' in his term.
Brennan promised Muskie did not have to worry about his
employees. Muskie then turned from Brennan, picked up the
phone and called Carter.
``He called the President and said `the green light is
flashing,' '' Brennan remembered, saying he was struck
that Muskie's two concerns, amid an international crisis
and a call to service by the President, was first to
Mainers and second to his employees.
``He was deeply concerned about his staff, to his great,
great credit,'' Brennan said.
Senator William Cohen, Maine's current senior Senator
who will retire this year after 24 years in Washington,
was among the legions of people who remembered Edmund
Muskie Tuesday.
``I know of no one who shared more in the action and
passion of his time,'' Cohen said. ``He felt deeply, acted
with integrity and served as a model for the best kind in
public service.''
a
[From the Des Moines Register, March 27, 1996]
Muskie Remembered for Service to Public, Ex-Secretary of
State Dies of Heart Failure
(Associated Press)
Deck: Longtime Senator from Maine, a former Presidential
candidate, is lauded for judgment and conviction.
Washington, DC--Edmund Muskie operated at the highest
reaches of American politics but he was remembered on the
day he died for his intellect and honesty, not for the
jobs he held.
``His brand of tireless public service is vanishing,''
said a former Senate colleague.
Muskie also will be recalled as the man who may have
lost a Presidential nomination by choking up in public.
The former Secretary of State died of heart failure
early Tuesday, 2 days shy of his 82nd birthday. He
underwent surgery last week in Georgetown University
Hospital for a blocked artery in his leg, then suffered a
heart attack a few days later.
His was a life of public office: Three-term State
legislator in his native Maine; twice Governor; U.S.
Senator for 22 years; Democratic nominee for Vice
President in 1968; candidate for President in 1972.
He left the Senate, where he had championed clean air
and clean water legislation, to become Secretary of State
in the Carter administration. As such, he helped oversee
the successful efforts to free 52 Americans held hostage
by Iran.
``I have never known any American leader who was more
highly qualified to be President of the United States,''
Carter said in tribute. ``His coolness under pressure and
his sound judgment helped him play a crucial role in
bringing all the American hostages home from Iran.''
President Clinton called Muskie ``a leader in the best
sense.''
``He spoke from his heart and acted with conviction,''
Clinton said.
``Ed Muskie was a patriot,'' said Senate leader Bob Dole
(R-KS). ``The State of Maine and America are better
because of Ed Muskie's life and career.''
To Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), Muskie was ``perhaps,
the most cogent persuader on the floor of the United
States Senate. . . . Time and again, he gave of himself.
His brand of tireless public service is vanishing.''
Muskie leaves Jane, his wife of 47 years, two sons,
three daughters and seven grandchildren. Burial was
scheduled for Arlington National Cemetery on Saturday,
after a funeral Mass in the Little Flower Church in
Bethesda, MD.
In his bid for the 1972 Democratic Presidential
nomination, Muskie won the New Hampshire primary, as he
had won preliminary caucuses in Arizona and Iowa, but in
none was his margin as large as anticipated. His poll
ratings began to drop after he choked up during an
emotional speech, and problems began to plague his
managers and fund-raisers.
George McGovern, a Senator from South Dakota, eventually
won the nomination.
I never believed that . . . diminished him in the
least,'' McGovern said Tuesday. ``Indeed, it was an
indication of his humanity and his essential decency.''
McGovern lost in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon
in the general election. Muskie returned to the Senate.
Years later, the Senate voted 94-2 to confirm him for
Secretary of State. Even Jesse Helms (R-NC), who voted
against Muskie as a protest against Carter's foreign
policy, joined in the applause for him.
Muskie was Hubert Humphrey's 1968 running mate in the
campaign against Nixon and Spiro Agnew.
Following his retirement from politics, Muskie became a
partner in the Washington law firm Chadbourne and Parke,
where he worked until he was hospitalized.
Muskie was born in Rumford, a western Maine paper mill
town, on March 28, 1914, the son of Stephen and Josephine
Muskie. His father was a tailor born in Poland.
Muskie worked his way through Bates College, went on to
Cornell Law School and set up a law practice in
Waterville, ME. He served in the Navy in World War II.
a
[From the Guardian Newspaper Limited, March 27, 1996]
It All Ended in Tears
(By Martin Walker)
Edmund Sixtus Muskie, who has died at age 81, was one of
the tantalizing might-have-beens of U.S. Presidential
politics. He will be remembered for a moment of public
tears and as a veteran Democratic Senator who may have
been the real victim of President Nixon's Watergate
machinations.
The tears and Watergate went together. In 1971-72,
Senator Ed Muskie of Maine was by far the most serious
Democratic challenger to Nixon's hopes of reelection. His
campaign was accordingly targeted for an unpleasant form
of guerrilla warfare by Nixon's dirty tricks division.
They forged letters in Muskie's name, spread foul rumors
about his wife, disabled campaign cars, and rang
conservative voters throughout the night, using
exaggerated African-American accents to say ``This is
Harlem for Muskie and we wants yo' vote.''
For the New Hampshire primary, where French-Canadians
are an important voting minority, they distributed a
forged Muskie letter which sneered at them as ``dumb
Canucks''. Muskie, who had never faced anything this dirty
in his political life, was most appalled by the attacks on
his wife, who indeed had a drinking problem, particularly
when they were published in the notoriously rightwing
Manchester Union-Leader.
On the campaign trial, in the snow, he broke down in
tears as he defended her against a heckler in a moment
caught by television that doomed his campaign. From his
bizarre behavior then and immediately afterwards, many on
Muskie's campaign staff suspect to this day that LSD or
some other drug was slipped into his coffee before he
began speaking.
At least it provoked one of Harold Macmillan's better
quips. Macmillan liked Muskie, thought he should have been
President, and later commented that any British politician
with experience of the House of Commons would have known
how to deal with a heckler. ``If somebody had shouted that
my wife was a drunk, I'd have replied `Yes, but you should
have seen her mother'. That would have worked.''
Muskie won the New Hampshire primary, but unconvincingly
for a neighbor from Maine. Senator George McGovern, far
more outspoken in his attacks on the Vietnam war, was able
to ride his support among the students and the radical
left all the way to the nomination--and to overwhelming
defeat by Nixon.
Muskie might have done better. It is not easy to be
sure. A man of craggy, slow-thinking and slow-talking
integrity, he could be an impressive public speaker, but
was not a gifted campaigner. In 1968, when he made his
name as Vice-Presidential running mate to Hubert Humphrey,
his plain virtues shone in contrast to the garrulous
Humphrey, the tricky Nixon and the oleaginous crook Nixon
chose as his running-mate, Spiro Agnew.
Muskie did not seriously consider running for the
Presidency until disaster befell the party's heir
apparent, Senator Edward Kennedy, when a female aide
drowned after Kennedy drove his car off a bridge at
Chappaquiddick in 1969. Muskie campaigned hard for his
party in the 1970 mid-term Congressional election, and
became the choice of the Democratic barons and the front-
runner.
To the public, Muskie was a traditional Democratic
centrist with a proud and pioneering record on
environmental legislation. To party insiders, he had been
Lyndon Johnson's loyal disciple since first being elected
to the Senate in 1958. Although Muskie later claimed
``private doubts'' about the Vietnam war as early as 1966,
in 1968 he stuck to the hawkish party platform.
Muskie, the son of Polish immigrants, was the first
Roman Catholic to attend Bates College, a haven of the
WASP aristocracy who could not get into Harvard or Yale.
He then became the first Democrat to be elected Governor,
and later Senator for the State of Maine, formerly so
solidly Republican that it was one of only two States to
vote against President Roosevelt in 1936.
Muskie became an elder statesman, available to fill the
gap as Secretary of State when Cyrus Vance resigned in
protest in the last months of the Carter Presidency. When
the Congress wanted a reliable hand to run the inquiry
into the Iran-Contra affair, Muskie was the obvious
candidate.
Always popular in Maine, Muskie suffered less than most
defeated candidates after his Presidential bid foundered.
His devoted aide, George Mitchell, inherited Muskie's
Senate seat, and went on to become Senate majority leader,
the post in which Muskie might have been most content.
Muskie's foreign policy aide in the 1972 campaign, Tony
Lake, is now national security adviser in the Clinton
White House.
Martin Walker served on Muskie's Senate and 1971
campaign staff as a Congressional Fellow of the American
Political Science Association.
Edmund Sixtus Muskie, politician, born March 28, 1914;
died March 26, 1996.
a
[From the Washington Post, March 27, 1996]
Edmund S. Muskie
(Editorial)
``It's as if one of our mountains has disappeared,''
said Maine's Governor Angus King upon learning of the
death of Edmund Muskie. The former Governor, U.S. Senator
and Secretary of State died yesterday at Georgetown
University Hospital 2 days short of his 82nd birthday. He
had a distinguished career in public service in this city
and was revered in his home State for his integrity,
compassion and quiet humor.
Senator Muskie was of the generation that returned from
World War II with a deep belief in the power of government
to do good. He served in election office on the State and
Federal levels for more than 30 years and was the first
Democrat to be popularly elected to the Senate from Maine.
When he arrived in Washington in 1959, his colleagues on
the Hill included John Kennedy, Philip Hart, Hubert
Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and other progressives who rose
to national prominence and put into place a panoply of
laws that changed the Nation profoundly. In this company,
he was a strong supporter of civil rights legislation,
poverty programs, Medicare and Medicaid. He played a
leadership role as the first chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee and the primary sponsor of the clean air and
water states of the early '60. These statutes reflected
not just his commitment to the environment but an ability
to delineate State and Federal interests and
responsibilities and provide a framework for cooperation.
His final months in public service, as Secretary of
State in the closing days of the Carter administration,
were devoted to working out the successful return of
American hostages from Iran and plugging away on strategic
arms control, which had been a primary interest of his in
the Senate.
Former President Jimmy Carter said yesterday he had
``never known any American leader who was more highly
qualified to be President of the United States.'' Mr.
Muskie, son of an immigrant tailor, never achieved that
goal. He ran for Vice President on the Democratic ticket
in 1968 and entered the Presidential primaries in 1972. As
a candidate, he was straightforward, knowledgeable and
principled, and he conveyed a belief that government could
do much to ensure justice, make the average family's life
a little better and protect the environment for future
generations. He lived his public life working to make
those convictions a reality.
a
[From Newsday, March 27, 1996]
U.S. Loses Its `Mr. Clean'
(By Patrick J. Sloyan)
pushed key environment laws, but lost a chance at
presidency
WASHINGTON--In cleansing the Nation's air and making
U.S. rivers and lakes safe for fish and swimmers, Edmund
Muskie used his intellect, political acumen and a terrible
temper.
``Oh, he would start yelling,'' former Senator Howard
Baker (R-TN), said yesterday, recalling a backroom debate
with Muskie over emissions from smoke stacks. Baker, who
stands 5 foot 8, was faced with 6 feet four inches of
craggy anger.
``My voice would rise; then we both would be
screaming,'' Baker said. ``The staff would recoil. But we
would always work it out. We had a lot of mutual
respect.''
When it was over, Muskie the Democratic Senator from
Maine, had hammered out another agreement that became part
of landmark environmental protection laws that changed the
quality of American life.
Muskie, who died yesterday at 81 after undergoing
surgery last week for a blocked artery and suffering a
subsequent heart attack, also will be remembered for a
public display of his temper. Choking on his anger in
public may have cost him a chance to challenge President
Richard Nixon for the White House in the 1972 Presidential
campaign.
But as chairman of an obscure Senate Public Works
subcommittee, Muskie made a mark on the Nation that can
elude some Presidents.
``Ed Muskie has earned his place in American history,''
said Sierra Club director Carl Pope, who called him the
architect of environmental protection programs. ``Thanks
to Senator Muskie, our country is a safer, healthier place
to live.''
For 21 years in the Senate, he was the driving force
behind legislation that identified toxic pollution in air
and water and prescribed a timetable and a gameplan for an
industry-by-industry cleanup. He was the author of the
1963 Clean Air Act and the 1965 Water Quality Act and
subsequent amendments dealing with conservation and safe
drinking water.
Muskie became ``Mr. Clean,'' sponsor of landmark laws
that created the Environmental Protection Agency and
regulations curbing pollution in a variety of ways. Lead,
once a gasoline additive, was banned and carmakers were
forced to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, grit and
oxides.
``If you think about what's happening to the air in
Mexico City or the rivers in Russia, it's really
terrifying to think what would have happened if it wasn't
for Ed Muskie,'' said Leon Billings, who served as
Muskie's chief of staff in the Senate.
Muskie was an avid hunter and fisherman, part of the
outdoor crowd that always was concerned with the land. But
it was as Governor of Maine that he became convinced
government action was needed. Corporate leaders, citing
the pollution in Maine's streams and rivers, repeatedly
refused Muskie's appeal to build new plants in Maine if
the water supplies were vital.
In later years, Muskie would delight in recounting the
return of Atlantic salmon to what had been the dirtiest
rivers in the State at the beginning of his political
career. ``The salmon are back in the Allagash,'' Muskie
boasted.
Baker, who served as Senate Republican leader, also
acknowledged Muskie's outsized role in the anti-pollution
movement that spread from the United States to nations in
Europe and Asia.
``Ed was one of the big ones,'' said Baker, who saw
protection of the environment become a bipartisan issue.
``It was heady stuff: Some of that legislation decreed
that the water be made more swimmable and more fishable.
You don't see such sweeping legislation today.''
It was Muskie's leadership on environmental issues that
propelled him into the national limelight. In 1968, Muskie
was picked as Hubert Humphrey's running mate when the
Democratic ticket lost narrowly to Nixon.
While Muskie won plaudits as a Vice Presidential
candidate, his image as the inevitable Presidential
candidate began in 1971 when he offered the Democratic
reply to Nixon's State of the Union address. ``To him, the
Presidency was the ultimate position for pressing his
agenda,'' Billings said.
As the front-runner in the Democratic race in 1972,
Muskie was even with Nixon in voter surveys as the
campaign moved into New Hampshire. Years later, it was
revealed that Nixon also viewed Muskie as the strongest
opponent. Nixon's aides financed a dirty-tricks campaign
against Muskie, including planting a letter that quoted
Muskie as calling a French-American a ``canuck.''
Muskie staged a dramatic rebuttal to the ``canuck''
charge and allegations against his wife, Jane, by The
Manchester Union Leader, during a news conference in front
of the newspaper's office.
Instead of an indignant Muskie, reporters saw a man so
choked with emotion that he could barely speak. Some
reported he was crying; others saw him tearless but
overwhelmed by anger. But the media joined in portraying
the front-runner as flawed and weak.
One upshot was that even when he won the primary March 7
by 9 percentage points, some political reporters portrayed
it as a disappointing showing against Senator George
McGovern.
Instead of taking it in stride, Muskie's fury reached
new heights. Enroute from New Hampshire to the next
primary in Wisconsin, Muskie lashed out in a rear-of-the-
plane interview.
``I win the [expletive] primary and you [expletive] say
I [expletive] lost the [expletive] primary,'' Muskie
shouted. ``I never cried that day,'' he said, pounding his
armrest.
Despite the endorsements of party leaders around the
Nation, Muskie lost to McGovern, who was buried in a Nixon
landslide. Muskie returned to the Senate, where he became
a leader in the fight to reduce the Federal budget
deficit.
Muskie's was the Senate's first Budget Committee
chairman, a post he left in 1980 to serve as Secretary of
State for President Jimmy Carter.
a
[From the San Francisco Examiner, March 28, 1996]
Muskie's Legacy: Clean Air, Water
(By Christopher Matthews)
WASHINGTON--Edmund Muskie was a great thinker, statesman
and legislator.
He was the only man I knew who, if required by
circumstance, could take his listener on an insightful
tour d'horizon of this country's predicaments, both
foreign and domestic.
His rival Richard Nixon could do the same, of course,
but with far more calculation on the global scene and much
less understanding of the domestic.
What made Senator Muskie's ability to grasp and sketch
the big picture so impressive was his even more fabled
ability to hunker down and get a specific piece of
national work done.
He was the son of a Polish immigrant, a tailor, and he
knew that even the highest profession requires, most of
all, toil.
I remember the Senate Budget Committee chairman at work
during the years I served that panel a generation ago.
Senator Muskie would arrive a few minutes before 10 a.m.
and take his seat at the head of the table. One at a time,
his fellow committee members would arrive, exchange
pleasantries, have their pictures taken by the news
photographers.
``Are there any statements?'' the chairman would ask.
At this, the Maine lawmaker's colleagues would offer
their quotes for the next morning's papers, their sound-
bites for the TV cameras.
After the camera tripods had been folded and the
Senators had begun to drift off to other appointments, the
chairman would move toward the task at hand: lawmaking.
Ed Muskie did not enter politics to have his sentences
appear in the newspaper, his phrases bit for the evening
news. He sought election to make the country better.
This Senator's senator did it by winning the confidence
of fellow lawmakers.
As he collected yet another proxy slip from a Senator
heading toward the door, he would ask: ``Does anyone else
have anything to say?''
The man who earned the nickname ``Iron Pants'', holding
dozens of mark-ups and House-Senate conference meetings on
the Clean Water bill, could be as tough as he was patient.
Once, in a stand-off with House counterpart John Dingell
of Michigan over the Clean Air Act, Senator Muskie was
told that failure to reach a quick, and, to him,
unacceptable, agreement would cause a shutdown in
automobile production.
His hard-as-nails response: ``There aren't any auto
works in Maine.''
Because Senator Muskie was patient, because he was
tough, the rivers of America were made clean again in the
1970s. Because of his willingness to put his head down and
work, rivers no longer catch fire.
Because of the Clean Air Act, America does not suffer
day after day from the hell that rains even now on cities
from Eastern Europe to the Far East.
No, Edmund S. Muskie did not win his once-in-a-lifetime
race for the Presidency in 1972. He was too temperamental,
too prone to tantrum, it was said.
When a New Hampshire newspaper publisher spoke nastily
of his wife, he let his emotions show.
But with this noble man's death Tuesday, we are reminded
again how better off we've been for having had a few
Senators who knew the job was more important than the
office, who possessed the inner rage to do the great, hard
work of keeping this country as close as humanly possible
to the dream that led our parents here.
a
[From the Bangor Daily News, March 28, 1996]
McGovern, Muskie Bonded by New Hampshire
(By John S. Day)
History defines its heroes by the wars they fought.
Often, the losers come off as good as the winners.
Ulysses S. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee, but Lee became
the more revered figure.
George Bush won the Gulf War, only to be rejected by
American voters. Saddam Hussein ruined his country. He
still rules.
George McGovern ended Edmund Muskie's quest for the
Presidency. It was McGovern, though, who became the object
of derision for losing every State but Massachusetts to
Richard Nixon in the subsequent national election.
The gods were kinder to Muskie than McGovern after 1972.
Maine' Senator continued as a trailblazer on environmental
issues. With his Presidency on the line, Jimmy Carter
named Muskie to head the U.S. State Department after
Secretary Cyrus Vance resigned to protest the failed
military mission to rescue the hostages in Iran.
After he left the Senate, McGovern moved to Connecticut
and opened a bed and breakfast inn.
``The place never made a dollar,'' McGovern said
Wednesday. It ended up in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. McGovern
blamed government red tape and local business regulations.
Rush Limbaugh seized on the incident to ridicule all
liberals as buffoons when it comes to business matters.
The cruelest blow was McGovern's daughter, Theresa, who
campaigned with her father during the glorious victory
over Muskie and through the 49-State defeat to Nixon and
the Watergate plumbers.
``She died of alcoholism,'' McGovern said. ``It was a
terrible problem.''
Theresa McGovern, unable to find her way home, was
discovered frozen to death in a snow-bank. McGovern has
written a book about the tragedy that will be released
this summer.
Because the two men will be forever linked by New
Hampshire--victor and loser--the media sought out George
McGovern Tuesday to talk about Ed Muskie.
``He was the first one who offered to go out on the
campaign trail with me against Nixon. It was some of the
most effective work that anybody did for me that year. We
became close friends,'' McGovern said.
On most Sundays during the football season, when the
Washington Redskins were playing home at RFK, Ed and Jane
Muskie and George and Eleanor McGovern were fixtures in
Jack Kent Cooke's owner's box.
``You know, one of the great myths about New Hampshire
was that the crying incident crippled Ed's campaign. I
don't think it hurt him a bit. I talked to thousands of
people in New Hampshire and never came across a single
voter who said he didn't like Ed because he saw him
shedding tears in public,'' McGovern said.
``Our door-to-door canvassers said Muskie was in decline
before the Union-Leader episode, but picked up two or
three percentage points after it,'' the former South
Dakota Senator said.
``I think it was an excuse by the pundits. They wrote
that Ed was going to have an easy time winning the
nomination. When that didn't happen, the writers had to
manufacture a reason,'' he said.
Muskie actually outpolled McGovern in New Hampshire, 46
percent to 37 percent.
a
[From the Dallas Morning News, March 29, 1996]
Muskie's Tears Were Ahead of Their Time
(By Deborah Mathis)
Edmund Muskie's death brings to mind the famous New
Hampshire incident of 1972 where the Democratic Senator
from Maine, vying for the White House, stood before the
snow-blown press corps and unwittingly crashed his
candidacy.
Throughout the primary season that year, the Manchester
Union Leader had led an assault on Mr. Muskie's character,
even publishing an outright lie furnished by one of
Richard Nixon's dirty tricks specialists.
But when the newspaper attacked Jane Muskie for smoking,
drinking, cursing and other ``unladylike'' behavior, the
affront was more than Mr. Muskie could stand. In a retort
to the newspaper's nastiness, he lost it.
The words got stuck in his throat. Tremors rippled
across his mouth and chin. His head dropped. And,
according to legend, drops of water rolled down his
checks.
No reporter on the scene that fateful day doubts that
Mr. Muskie was shaken, but some insist he didn't cry.
Others are just as adamant that he did.
For a while, Mr. Muskie fudged. What the reporters saw
on his face may have been melted snowflakes instead of
tears, he allowed.
However, he eventually admitted his emotions had gotten
the best of him on that occasion and conceded the episode
had finished his Presidential campaign.
``They were looking for a strong, steady man,'' he said
later, ``and here I was weak.''
Actually, Mr. Muskie was a man ahead of his time.
Had it been 1988 rather than 1972, Mr. Muskie might have
been the one standing opposite Republican nominee George
Bush, listening to a TV anchorman's brutal, hypothetical
question about the rape and murder of the candidate's
wife.
Instead, there was someone else at the microphone
pondering the wrenching scenario that evening, and it is
well known that that man didn't cry. Nor did he wince. In
fact, he barely even blinked.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis responded with the cool
detachment of a forensic scientist. Unfortunately for him,
voters wanted to hear from the good husband. We were
looking for just a sliver of indignation or grief over the
mere thought of his wife's suffering.
But tears for the beloved had trickled 16 years too
early, in another place, when the country had a more
primitive mind-set.
It was unacceptable back then for a man to weep in
public for most reasons, even for a dear wife's sake.
Weeping men with Presidential ambitions could forget it.
No longer.
We still can't take sobbing collapse scenes a la Jim
Bakker, but healthy tear ducts are required among viable
Presidential candidates these days. If a guy can't at
least well up every now and then, we wonder if he gives a
damn.
To the extent that this loosening of the rule helps
humanize the powerful, thus narrowing the gap between the
leading and the led and erasing another arbitrary line
between male and female, it is progress, which is about
all we ask from time.
Had we evolved to this place sooner, a man like Edmund
Muskie would have had a chance. Because we didn't, a
capable, decent man had to forfeit the dream he was
entitled to.
For that sad fact alone, there should be tears aplenty.
a
[From the Baltimore Sun, March 29, 1996]
The Man Who Showed His Emotion Too Soon
(Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover)
WASHINGTON--For all of Senator Edmund Muskie's
considerable accomplishments, his death brought renewed
reminiscences of his unsuccessful Presidential bid in 1972
and the single incident to which its outcome was often
attributed.
News reports captured Mr. Muskie standing outside the
Manchester Union Leader in a snowstorm during the 1972 New
Hampshire primary and momentarily losing his composure
over personal attacks in the newspaper on his wife, Jane.
Debatable even today is whether, as many wrote, Mr. Muskie
had wept, or whether it was melted snow rather than tears
that trickled down his cheek as he spoke in mixed anger
and sorrow.
The Senator told author Theodore H. White that the
episode ``changed people's minds about me. . . . They were
looking for a strong, steady man, and here I was weak.''
If ever there was a misreading of a man, that was it.
Mr. Muskie was figuratively as well as physically a
tower of strength, a man of dogged convictions whose
resolution was generally so firm that any suggestion that
he might be indecisive could draw from his usually
reserved demeanor a paroxysm of denial and protest.
Political reporters interrogated Mr. Muskie relentlessly
on the one issue about which he was uncharacteristically
indecisive--the Vietnam war. He had publicly supported
President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy when he was
Hubert Humphrey's running mate in 1968, but he eventually
turned critic. Still he had difficulty as a Presidential
candidate in 1972 articulating what he would do about the
war.
This problem--as much as or more than the famous scene
outside the newspaper--persuaded voters to abandon him.
After a winning but disappointing showing in New
Hampshire, he plunged to fourth place in the Florida and
Wisconsin primaries as Senator George McGovern swept to
the Democratic nomination.
Senator Muskie's lack of clear articulation on Vietnam
was particularly damaging to him because the war at that
time was at the center of American politics. Democratic
liberals were leading anti-war demonstrations, and new
nomination procedures were giving greater influence to
their voices and votes. Mr. Muskie's late enlistment in
the anti-war cause, as opposed to Mr. McGovern's long
history in it, eventually undid Senator Muskie.
crying in the snow
Yet his ``crying in the snow'' likely will remain the
one image most Americans of the time will remember of the
man. This is a considerable irony in light of the
experience 16 years later of another Democratic
Presidential candidate, Governor Michael Dukakis.
Asked in a debate whether, if his wife Kitty were
``raped and murdered,'' he would ``favor an irrevocable
death penalty for the killer,'' Mr. Dukakis replied with a
stone-cold lack of emotion. His answer that he had always
been against the death penalty was widely criticized for
its blandness and impersonal quality.
Perhaps the difference was that Governor Dukakis already
had a reputation as a mechanical man of little emotion.
His response missed a golden political opportunity to
demonstrate an understandable human reaction. But more
than that probably was the attitude of the time toward
people in public life.
As his friend, former Senate Majority Leader George
Mitchell, said the other day, Mr. Muskie ran at a time
when reserve was expected of candidates. Had the New
Hampshire episode occurred today, Mr. Muskie might have
been widely commended for his behavior.
Four years ago, nominee Bill Clinton in debate with the
more reserved President Bush won many voters by letting a
questioner know that he ``felt her pain.'' When she asked
``how you can honestly find a cure for the economic
problems of the common people if you have no experience in
what's ailing them,'' Mr. Bush was nonplused but Mr.
Clinton was ready with a reply based on what he had seen
happen to real people in Arkansas.
If Ed Muskie had been running for President today
wearing his heart on his sleeve, it would probably have
helped him. But that was a different time.
a
[From the News & Record (Greensboro, NC), March 30, 1996]
Ed Muskie of Maine Gave Politics a Good Name
(Editorial)
Ed Muskie of Maine gave politics a good name. What
happened to him in New Hampshire did not.
Edmund S. Muskie, who died earlier this week in
Washington just 2 days short of his 82nd birthday, was a
man who might have been President--and almost certainly
would have been the Democratic Presidential nominee--
except for dirty politics. Sleazy political tricks cost
him his chance at the White House, but not his record of
service or reputation as a person of character.
Muskie was in the public spotlight for 30 years as
Governor of Maine, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State,
Hubert Humphrey's Vice Presidential candidate and,
briefly, the Democratic front-runner for President in
1972. He cared deeply for his country and its people. He
was years ahead of most public officials in speaking out
on environmental issues. While his quick temper sometimes
caused him problems, he debated issues instead of
personalities. He was also a charmer who could win
opponents over with good will and the passion of his
convictions.
Muskie never really got over what happened to him in the
snows of New Hampshire 25 years ago. His firm belief in
the essential goodness of man made it hard for him to
grasp the political amorality that cost him his chance at
the White House. But he never gave up his desire to make
this country better.
Muskie's bid for the 1972 Democratic Presidential
nomination was destroyed by a political character assassin
in the employ of Richard Nixon, the Republican President.
During the New Hampshire Democratic Presidential primary
in 1972 with Muskie clearly the leading candidate, an
anonymous letter--based on a bald-faced lie--was printed
in the Manchester Union Leader. The letter accused Muskie
of using the derogatory term ``Canuck'' in reference to
the region's many French Canadians. The letter turned out
to have been written and sent to the newspaper by Kenneth
Clawson, a political aide to Nixon. The newspaper also
printed critical stories about Muskie's wife, accusing her
of ``smoking, drinking and cursing,'' in a day when that
kind of insult carried enormous weight.
At that point, Muskie's temper got the better of his
judgment. Out of patience with the newspaper over the
``Canuck'' letter and stories about his wife, Muskie
lashed out at his critics in a snowstorm speech and,
according to reporters watching him, shed tears. Muskie
later said he wasn't crying, but was bothered by snow
blowing into his eyes. It doesn't matter; the indignity
gave him ample reason for tears. In any case, that episode
began the rapid disintegration of his Presidential
campaign. His support eroded and 6 weeks later he dropped
out of the race.
Muskie returned to private life for awhile, but returned
to government briefly as Secretary of State under
President Jimmy Carter.
Ed Muskie was a politician in the best sense, a
conciliator and a peacemaker, who used persuasion to bring
differing sides together for the common good. His style
was nothing like the combativeness that prevails today. It
was a lot better.
a
[From the Economist, March 30, 1996]
Edmund Muskie
(Editorial)
With his huge frame and almost geological features,
Edmund Muskie always seemed cut out, in one sense, for
immortalization on Mount Rushmore. That his profile is not
in fact to be chiseled beside those of the greatest of
American statesmen is a reflection of the fact that, for
all his many successes in public life, his political
stature never quite matched his physical proportions.
All this became plain in one of those famous moments of
elucidation that, every 4 years, the long and arduous
American Presidential campaign is meant to produce.
Instantly forgotten are the carefully considered, sage
pronouncements that the candidates offer on detailed
matters of policy. Ever remembered are the spontaneous
risings to the occasion (Ronald Reagan's put-down to the
moderator of a debate in Nashua, New Hampshire in 1980
with the words: ``I am paying for this microphone, Mr.
Breen!'') and the inevitable sinkings.
For Mr. Muskie, it was a sinking. With the opinion polls
showing him clear favorite to win the New Hampshire
primary in 1972, and pretty evenly matched against the
incumbent President, Richard Nixon, Mr. Muskie broke down
before the cameras, while defending his wife's honor on a
flatbed truck in New Hampshire. The defense was necessary,
in his view, because an attack had appeared in the
ferociously right-wing Manchester Union Leader accusing
Mrs. Muskie of drunkenness and unladylike behavior, and
Mr. Muskie of using the word ``Canucks'', a derogatory
term for French Canadians.
Both charges, it was later learned, had emanated from
the dirty-tricks department of the Nixon campaign. Never
mind: Mr. Muskie responded emotionally, though whether or
not with tears (he always maintained they were just
snowflakes in his eyes) was in the end unimportant. Though
he won the primary, it was not by the margin advertised,
and by April he was out of the race. As he himself said,
``It changed people's minds about me, of what kind of guy
I was. They were looking for a strong, steady man, and
here I was weak.''
a touch of lincoln
Though the Manchester incident proved a defining moment,
it did not do justice to Mr. Muskie, who was just as
capable of the grand gesture as of the weak. On one
occasion in 1968, for instance, when he was campaigning
for the Vice Presidency as Hubert Humphrey's running mate,
protesters opposed to the war in Vietnam disrupted his
speech; their thunder was muted, if not stolen, when he
invited them to send one of their number up to the
platform for a more decorous debate.
Mr. Muskie's great strength was not his
conscientiousness, though it was notable, nor his oratory,
though it was often likened, as was his demeanor, to
Abraham Lincoln's. Rather it was his plain honesty, all
the more striking in the 1960s and 1970s when politicians
were coming to be viewed as devious and deceitful. Ed
Muskie ``had a slow, honest bottom-of-the-barrel integrity
on tough issues,'' wrote Norman Mailer, and the voters
evidently agreed.
Certainly, Mr. Muskie was a formidable vote-getter. His
political career was based in Maine, a State so Republican
that it had never had a popularly elected Democratic
Senator until he won that office in 1958, having captured
the governorship 4 years earlier as the first Democrat to
do so for 20 years. The people of Maine liked Mr. Muskie's
independence: early on, he showed he was ready to defy the
might of the Senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson, even
though that cost him committee positions he wanted. The
voters also liked his attacks on pollution and his defense
of the environment, a cause on which he was an early
campaigner.
But Mr. Muskie had weaknesses too. His temper, which
flared like Maine's autumn foliage, was one. His lack of
elan, that indefinable quality so necessary in politics,
was another. A third was his judgment, which too often let
him down; the remark in 1971 to a group of black leaders
that the American electorate was not yet ready for a black
on the national ticket, the pitiful effort to outmaneuver
George McGovern at the 1972 Democratic convention. And in
the end there was the sense, which somehow communicated
itself to others, that Mr. Muskie did not really mind that
much about the top job--hence perhaps his failure to
secure it.
After 21 years in the Senate, Mr. Muskie was called by
President Jimmy Carter in 1980 to become his Secretary of
State. In his 10 months in the job, Mr. Muskie showed all
his best qualities; his thoroughness, his
straightforwardness (despite the potential for rivalry
with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the President's ambitious
national security adviser and Mr. Muskie's fellow Polish-
American), and his bluntness. Not for Mr. Muskie too much
diplomatic language; he was, after all, the man who had
told the New York Liberal Party, ``The blunt truth is that
liberals have achieved virtually no fundamental change in
our society since the end of the New Deal.'' Mr. Muskie
was famous for responding to Nixon's victory in 1968 with
the words, ``In Maine we have a saying that you don't say
anything that doesn't improve on silence.'' But he also
knew how to speak out.
a
[From the Portland Press Herald, March 30, 1996]
To Senators and Clerk, Muskie Special Person
(By John Richardson)
Nearly 300 visitors--from U.S. Senators to a
neighborhood grocery-store clerk--paid respects Friday to
the family of Edmund S. Muskie at a funeral home that has
buried many of the Nation's most important statesmen.
Muskie--a former Maine Governor, longtime U.S. Senator,
U.S. Secretary of State and Presidential candidate--died
Tuesday after a heart attack last week. He would have been
82 on Thursday. He will be buried today at Arlington
National Cemetery after a funeral Mass in Bethesda, MD.
Called the most prominent man in Maine political
history, Muskie was also remembered Friday as a neighbor,
a faithful parishioner, even a gracious customer.
Victor S. Wilson came to admire the Muskie family
through his job as a part-time cashier at the Giant
grocery store near the Muskies' Bethesda home since 1968,
the year Muskie ran for Vice President.
``I watched their children grow up,'' said Wilson.
``They were just a very pleasant family, down to earth,
gracious. . . . They're just good, solid people.''
Wilson knew who Muskie was the first time he came in--
``a man of character,'' he said.
``I think he acted on his values,'' Wilson said. ``I
think he was cut from a different piece of fabric than the
current politicians, with certain exceptions. It was a
different era. He was concerned for the common man. I wish
there were 100 of him in the Senate.''
On Friday, Muskie's body lay in a closed casket draped
with an American flag and surrounded by colorful bouquets.
His wife of 47 years, Jane, his two sons and three
daughters and their spouses greeted admirers, occasionally
sharing an emotional hug with an old friend.
Framed photographs of a smiling Muskie--the husband, the
father, the Senator, and the Vice Presidential and
Presidential candidate--decorated the stately rooms of the
prestigious Joseph Gawler's Sons funeral home. The funeral
home has buried a long list of prominent Americans,
including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and
Hubert Humphrey, who chose Muskie as his running mate in
1968.
Next to the guest registry was a recent photograph of
Muskie relaxing on his front lawn signed, ``To Jane, with
all my love, and thanks for all the good years, Ed.''
Muskie's family chatted with visitors, while
grandchildren entertained themselves in the labyrinth of
sitting rooms.
Several family members wore old political lapel
buttons--``Draft Muskie'' and ``McGovern-Muskie.'' Stephen
Muskie, tall and lanky like his father, wore a stars-and-
stripes tie with his navy suit.
The visitors included Senators William Cohen (R-ME);
Fritz Hollings (D-SC), and Sam Nunn (D-GA); Representative
John Baldacci (D-ME); John McLaughlin, a political
commentator and Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who
was a deputy to Muskie when he was Secretary of State in
1980.
Former Maine Governor Joseph E. Brennan and State
Representative John Martin (D), Eagle Lake, came, as did
others from Muskie's native State.
Muskie, the son of an immigrant tailor in Rumford, was a
State legislator, a two-term Governor and a Senator for 22
years. He is considered a mentor by countless Maine
Democrats who credit him with rebuilding the party and
symbolizing dedicated public service.
``He never forgot who he was,'' said Martin, who worked
as a political aide to Muskie in the 1960s.
Muskie's most permanent legacy may be the landmark laws
to protect air and water that he crafted as a Senator
during the 1960s.
``I don't think there's anyone in Maine history who will
have as long-term an impact on Maine as Ed Muskie,'' said
Martin. ``I mean in terms of doing things for Maine that
will be forever lasting.''
Many of those who came to pay respects were friends from
metropolitan Washington, which had been Muskie's primary
home since his first election to the U.S. Senate 37 years
ago. He and Jane Muskie continued to visit their Kennebunk
home during the summers.
Monsignor William J. Kane, pastor of the Church of the
Little Flower in Bethesda, came to pay respects to ``a man
of great faith.'' The Muskies have been faithful
parishioners at the church for 37 years, he said.
Kane will deliver a homily at the funeral Mass at 11
a.m. today. Muskie's two sons, Stephen and Edmund Jr., are
expected to speak, as is former President Jimmy Carter.
Muskie, who served as Carter's Secretary of State and
was a World War II veteran, will be buried at 1 p.m. today
in Arlington National Cemetery. The ceremonies are
scheduled to be broadcast on C-Span.
a
[From the Washington Post, March 30, 1996]
Muskie's Gift
(By Mark Shields)
Before he began his work, there were no national laws
and no international agreements governing the quality of
the country's air and water. None. When he began his work,
nearly three-quarters of the Nation's rivers were
unswimmable and unfishable. The Great Lakes were dying. In
too many places, the air was a threat to a child's lungs
and even to a community's life.
In no small measure because of the laws, he wrote, 20
years later three-quarters of the Nation's rivers were
both swimmable and fishable. The Great Lakes were alive--
recreationally, economically and spiritually. More than 95
percent of the lead had been removed from the Nation's
air.
But more than the landmark environmental laws he
crafted, the legacy of Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine is a
truly healthier, safer and more responsible country. Of
how many American Presidents can the same be said?
In compliance with current full-disclosure rules, let
the reader know that I served as political director in
Muskie's 1972 Presidential campaign. (Yes, during my
tenure, Muskie went from dominant front-runner to
disappointed also-ran.)
Muskie made permanent an environmental revolution. As
his friend, protege and Senate successor, George Mitchell,
put it on ``The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer'': ``He changed
the way Americans think and the way they live. It would be
unthinkable now for someone to suggest that we suddenly
let factories and municipalities start dumping all their
sewage into rivers--which we did for almost all of
American history until he changed laws and changed minds
and changed attitudes.''
Nearly as important as what Ed Muskie did was how he did
it. With a combination of perseverance, intelligence and
integrity, he forged a legislative consensus in support of
revolutionary and potentially divisive initiatives. He was
able to enlist as his allies respected Republican Senate
colleagues, including Howard Baker of Tennessee, John
Sherman Cooper of Kentucky and James Buckley of New York.
More often than not, Muskie won unanimous committee
backing for his clean-air and clean-water proposals.
Muskie's leadership helped transform that consensus in
Congress on the environment to a consensus in the Nation
that strongly endures to this moment. The remarkable 1995
comeback from political limbo by President Clinton was
made possible by Clinton's effectively casting himself
against the new Republican majority as the protector of
the environment and defender of many of the laws Ed Muskie
had written.
So why did such a leader fail when seeking his party's
Presidential nomination? There are two explanations--one
personal, the other political. The qualities of open-
mindedness, patience and deliberation so critical to
winning legislative support can be liabilities in the
drive-by, sound-bite atmosphere of a multi-candidate
Presidential primary, where the premium is often on a
candidate's talent for confrontation rather than for
consensus.
Politically, Muskie, along with former representative
and Federal Judge Frank Coffin, was the founder of the
modern Democratic Party in his home State. So dependably
Republican had Maine been that the year Muskie graduated
from college, it was one of only two States to support Alf
Landon, the GOP nominee against Franklin Roosevelt. After
two terms as Governor, Muskie in 1958 became the first
Democrat in Maine history ever popularly elected to the
U.S. Senate.
As a minority Democrat in a very Republican State,
candidate Muskie's first task was to reassure the majority
that he harbored no plans for nationalizing the banks or
confiscating the country club. To win, the majority-party
candidate must shrewdly submerge philosophical differences
and emphasize instead personal qualities and shared
values. Prior to his 1972 Presidential campaign, Muskie
had never contested in a party primary against another
Democrat.
I shall always remember that wonderful Muskie voice and
the eloquence of his 1970 election-eve rebuttal to a
strident President Richard Nixon: ``There are only two
kinds of politics . . . the politics of fear and the
politics of trust. One says: You are encircled by
monstrous dangers. . . . The other says: The world is a
baffling and hazardous place, but it can be shaped to the
will of men.''
Ed Muskie was, himself, that reasonable and decent man
who trusted in the decency and reason of his fellow
citizens.
a
[From the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME), March 30, 1996]
Muskie Coveted the Trust of Mainers
(By Kent Ward)
In a moving ceremony not unlike those that have occurred
at Arlington National Cemetery since the first soldier was
buried there in 1864, another good man who served his
country well will be laid to eternal rest today in that
hallowed ground not far from our Nation's Capital.
This service will strike a little closer to home than
most of those past, however, since the bell will toll and
the trumpet will sound for Edmund Sixtus Muskie, a
distinguished son of Maine who died at a Washington
hospital earlier this week just days short of his 82nd
birthday.
Small-town lawyer, legislator, Governor of Maine and
United States Senator, as well as Secretary of State for
President Jimmy Carter during the latter bittersweet days
of the Iran hostage crisis, Muskie cast a long shadow over
the national political landscape. Yet he never forgot his
blue-collar milltown beginning, nor did he forsake the
Maine people who ultimately were responsible for thrusting
him on to the world stage.
He knew, better than anyone, that he could never have
been elected Governor in 1954 without the help of legions
of so-called ``Muskie Republicans'' who crossed the party
line to vote for him at the expense of their own
candidate. Where others might damn the man with faint
praise, Republicans would praise the man with faint damns.
``He's a good man. Even if he is a Democrat,'' they'd
explain, and in this neck of the woods most people had
been programmed to understand the distinction.
Before long, fellow Democratic candidates for higher
office had ridden the coattails of Muskie's success,
provoking a sea change in the State's political makeup.
Still, many a Republican continued to stick with Muskie in
the privacy of the voting booth, jumping back to the other
side of the ballot to support the Grand Old Party.
(There was, after all, no point in going to hell with
the joke.)
Once, while reporting on politics for this fine
newspaper and chasing him around the State as he
campaigned for the U.S. Senate, I asked Muskie about the
basis for such bipartisan support. ``I'd like to think
it's because I've earned their trust,'' he said, or words
to that effect, and I remembered suspecting that he had
undoubtedly pretty much hit the nail on the head with one
succinct down-home Yankee sentence.
But woe to anyone who might question whether that trust
might be misplaced. A fellow BDN reporter found this out
the hard way during another Muskie campaign for re-
election to the Senate. At a press conference where Muskie
had gone into quite some detail about the various things
he was hard at work on for the national good, she threw
caution to the wind. ``That's all very fine, Senator. But
what are you doing for the State of Maine?'' she wanted to
know.
As your basic spontaneous heartfelt reactions go, this
one was a doozy. The reporter said later that she had
never seen steam come out of a guy's ears before, nor
until then had she actually witnessed a living definition
of the word ``apoplexy.'' That exhibition of the infamous
Muskie temper became the stuff of legend in the newsroom,
and among old hands at the newspaper the story still
inspires serious bouts of hilarity some 20 years after the
fact.
Down in York County one night, Muskie addressed a local
service club after a long, hard day of campaigning.
Something--long since forgotten--was said that set him off
and he countered with a swift, clean surgical strike on
the enemy's position. As I scribbled furiously from my
vantage point in the back of the room he told the
gathering, in essence, that he didn't know why he was
wasting his time with them, anyway, since he had better
things to do and, bottom line, he could most likely troll
till Hell froze over and still not land a single vote out
of the sorry Republican place. I don't know if his hosts
were all that impressed with the tongue-lashing, but I
certainly was.
My story got a good play in the morning paper, and a few
days later a letter from Muskie arrived. Uh-oh, I thought,
I've become persona non grata in the Muskie camp. But that
turned out to be hardly the case. The newspaper story had
been the most accurate reporting of his campaign he had
seen in quite some time, Muskie wrote, and he wished to
thank me for telling it like it was.
For The Man From Maine, interred today in the gentle
Virginia countryside among the generals, Presidents,
astronauts and heroes of the Nation's wars, ``telling it
like it was'' was as important as earning the public's
trust and not forgetting your roots.
Rest in peace, Edmund Sixtus Muskie. A grateful State
will not soon forget you.
a
[From the Washington Post, March 31, 1996]
Muskie Buried Amid Tributes to Environmentalism
(By Karl Vick)
Edmund S. Muskie, of Maine, was laid to rest yesterday,
on a cool, still day that carried both the promise of
spring and a rich sense of how much one life can achieve,
even if not every promise is realized.
``Of all the people I've known, no one was better
qualified to be President of the United States,'' said
Jimmy Carter, under whom Muskie served in 1980 as
Secretary of State, his highest office.
Yet, Carter added, ``I don't believe anyone has
contributed as much to Americans' quality of life.''
Muskie, 81, who died Tuesday was eulogized at a heavily
attended Bethesda funeral Mass as a passionate, erudite
and deeply feeling politician, a mischievous grandfather
and an inspiration to staff members more accustomed to
making do.
But the deepest tribute in a day of praise arrived
backhandedly. It began with the acknowledgment that early
in a 21-year U.S. Senate career, Muskie ushered through
the first Federal laws mandating clean air and clean
water.
He was ``this Nation's most important environmental
leader,'' said former Chief of Staff Leon G. Billings (D),
now a State lawmaker from Montgomery County.
``Nothing surpassed what he did for the Nation's
environment,'' said George Mitchell, the Muskie protege
who succeeded him in the Senate. ``Anyone who wants to
know Ed Muskie's legacy need only go to the nearest
river.''
Yet the personal qualities that so many saw in the man--
integrity, compassion and a bearing so statesmanlike it
made a cliche of the adjective ``Lincolnesque''--proved so
compelling that the father of the environmental movement
may well be remembered best for never becoming President.
He ran only once.
``He was the ideal in public service,'' Mitchell said.
``Integrity was more important than winning. Real
intelligence meant more than sound bites.''
Muskie served two terms as Governor of his native Maine
before going to the U.S. Senate. He ventured into national
electoral politics by accepting the second spot on the
1968 Democratic Presidential ticket with Hubert H.
Humphrey, who later said he chose ``the quiet one'' to
balance his own volubility. But in personal appearances,
Muskie often was received more warmly.
His prominence grew in 1970, when Muskie voiced an
impassioned plea for trust as an antidote to President
Richard Nixon's ``politics of fear.'' He entered the 1972
Democratic primaries as the presumptive front-runner, and
before dropping out in April, he played the protagonist in
one of the most dramatic scenes in modern political
history.
From the bed of a truck backed up to the Manchester
Union Leader, Muskie appeared to weep as he railed against
a newspaper that had called his wife unladylike and
printed a letter falsely accusing him of tolerating an
aide calling French-Canadians ``Canucks.'' The letter
turned out to be one of the ``dirty tricks'' perpetrated
by the Nixon White House, which did not savor facing
Muskie in November.
The provocation was aimed at a ``model moderate'' who,
as a Democrat from a squarely Republican state, always
steered for the middle of the road. In the three rows of
pews reserved for Senators at his funeral, Republicans,
including Orrin Hatch of Utah and Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
of Kansas joined the sizable Democratic delegation.
Muskie was also famous for his temper. To appreciative
laughter, Mitchell recalled that the first time the 6-
foot-4 Senator loomed over him, shaking a finger and
bellowing about what he considered sub-par work, ``I
couldn't control the shaking of my legs, even though I was
sitting down.''
And Muskie was ``more imposing intellectually than he
was physically,'' Mitchell said. ``He was the smartest
person I ever met.''
United Nations Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright, another
former Muskie aide, said her old boss also was ahead of
the times in terms of fairness to women. ``The truth is
this man was my role model,'' Albright said.
Albright, who represented President Clinton at the
funeral, read a letter from the President to Muskie's
widow: ``Dearest Jane,'' it concluded, ``thank you for
sharing this great man with us.''
Each of Muskie's five children took part in the Catholic
service, held at Bethesda's Church of the Little Flower,
before burial with military honors at Arlington National
Cemetery. A World War II Navy veteran, Muskie was assigned
to destroyer escorts in the Pacific and Atlantic fleets.
He died 2 days before his 82th birthday, but son Stephen
O. Muskie said the family had a party Thursday night
anyway. There were sixteen at the table, he said. They
drank a toast and sang ``Happy Birthday.'' Then the
youngest of the Senator's seven grandchildren blew out the
candles on not one but two cakes.
``Dad was not visibly present,'' his son said. ``He was
present in spirit.''
[From the Dallas Morning News, March 31, 1996]
Edmund Muskie, Our Engineering Officer
(By Bill Roberts)
He was our Abraham Lincoln, this tall drink of water
from Maine who came aboard the U.S.S. Brackett DE-41 in
the Pacific in early 1944. Our engineering officer, Mr.
Tate, had been transferred to other duties. Like all crew
members, the black gang wondered what was this guy going
to be like? We were surprised that he didn't call us all
together and make the ``rah-rah'' speech we had seen
others make and then go to the wardroom, with little
concern thereafter for what their division did or what the
men under them were all about. We waited.
It was about 4 days later that he started to visit the
engine spaces, introducing himself to each of the men on
watch, asking them about their life aboard the ship, what
was their life like before they joined the Navy. We sort
of liked the down-to-earth approach he took. We
appreciated his concern, and we liked the idea that we
were teaching him about the idiosyncrasies of the ship. In
the meanwhile, he was charting another course that would
involve us, not only now, but in the years to come. He
started bringing down the Navy's study books. Whatever
rate you held you sure were to be visited by him and be
the recipient of the book that would steer you toward the
next higher rate.
``I'd like you to take this with you and read it. If you
have any questions on the material ask me the next time
you see me. If I don't know the answer, we will both find
it together.'' It was like having your own personal
teacher. Before we had any inkling of what was going on,
the black gang was, no matter what the deck hands thought,
getting educated. Once the black gang started to be
promoted and elevated to the next pay scale, others on the
ship started to wonder. The tedium and boredom of
escorting baby carriers, troop ships and cargo vessels
were over. We had something that kept our minds busy and a
funny thing happened. Those with higher rates took time to
help those aspiring crew members who found it difficult to
understand some of the formulas and meanings of some of
the words.
When part of the black gang got into trouble, he took
care of the discipline himself, rather than have one go in
front of Captain's Mast. He was an educator who cared for
his men. He was the one with the keenest ear, whether it
was listening to a sonar doppler sound when he had the
conn on the bridge, or to the wavering voice of one of the
black gang who got a bad news letter from home. He was
your priest, your rabbi where there were none. He was a
stalwart man.
We will miss you, Edmund Sixtus Muskie.
a
[From the Portland Press Herald, March 31, 1996]
`Great Man' Laid to Rest; Muskie's Integrity, Legacy
Honored
(By John Richardson)
Edmund S. Muskie, remembered for changing the course of
Maine and the Nation during five decades of public
service, was buried Saturday afternoon with military
honors at Arlington National Cemetery.
The burial followed a moving Roman Catholic funeral Mass
and a series of eloquent eulogies from his family and from
such figures as former President Jimmy Carter and former
Maine Senator George Mitchell.
Their stories about Muskie--Maine's best-known political
figure--more often led the hundreds of mourners to hearty
laughter than to tears.
They reminisced about the wise, witty and humble son of
a tailor whose efforts to protect the environment and
promote dignity in public service will have a lasting
impact.
``I don't believe many Presidents in history ever
contributed so much to the quality of life in America,''
Carter told Muskie's widow, Jane.
Muskie grew up in Rumford and served two terms as
Governor of Maine before moving to the U.S. Senate, where
he represented the State for 22 years. He ran for Vice
President in 1968 and President in 1972, and served as
Carter's Secretary of State in 1980.
Muskie died Tuesday of a heart attack at age 81.
In a testament to his impact, the funeral Mass drew
hundreds of mourners to the family's suburban Washington
church, including Maine Governor Angus King, three former
Maine Governors, three members of Maine's Congressional
delegation and a legion of Senators and Congressional
Representatives.
Police stopped traffic for the long processional as it
followed the hearse from the church in Bethesda, MD,
across the Potomac River and into Arlington.
There, seven members of the U.S. Navy Ceremonial Honor
Guard stood rigid in black uniforms on the green hill
overlooking Muskie's casket and a crowd of mourners.
The sailors fired three sharp volleys into the air. A
lone bugler played Taps before members of the guard folded
the American flag draped over the coffin and handed it to
Muskie's widow.
In his eulogy, former Senator Mitchell called Muskie
``my hero, my mentor, my friend'' and the ``greatest
public official in Maine's history.''
``He was loved and trusted by the people of Maine,''
said Mitchell, who retired from the Senate last year. ``He
was the ideal in public service, a man who accomplished
much without compromising his dignity or ideals. He taught
us that integrity was more important than winning.''
Paraphrasing Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Mitchell said,
``A great man has died and for years his light will shine
upon our paths.''
Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations and a former aide to Muskie, read a message from
President Clinton, who did not attend the funeral.
``Our Nation was blessed to have Ed Muskie in public
service so long,'' Clinton's message said. ``He was a
leader of conscience and conviction. . . . Citizens across
our country and around the world are lowering their flags
to half staff today.''
Like Mitchell, Carter called Muskie his hero.
Carter, the former Governor of Georgia, recalled that
when Muskie was a frontrunner for the Presidential
nomination in 1972, he invited the Senator to the
Governor's mansion to try to impress him and, possibly,
get the second spot on the ticket.
Muskie's candidacy never got that far. His quest for the
Presidency was cut short when the Senator denounced a
newspaper report that was critical of his wife. Some said
Muskie cried at the press conference; it effectively ended
his campaign.
In later years, said Carter, he came to rely on the
Senator's judgment: ``I turned to him often.''
With his administration in trouble in 1980, the former
President asked Muskie to serve as his Secretary of State.
Carter said Muskie made it possible for the American
hostages held in Iran to come home. ``Typically, Ed did
not seek any credit for that achievement,'' said Carter.
Stephen Muskie, the oldest of the five Muskie children,
told the mourners about another side of Maine's elder
statesman. He remembered crawling into his father's lap in
front of the fireplace at their cottage next to China Lake
and listening to a story.
``The story was replete with the kind of sound effects
the public never heard from Dad,'' he said.
Albright, who worked on Muskie's Senate staff, offered
her own memories and credited Muskie for her success. ``I
do love Eleanor Roosevelt, but the truth is this man was
my role model,'' she said.
Many former Muskie staff members--some of them former
Governors and Senators themselves--were among those who
filled the Church of the Little Flower. One man, an aide
from Muskie's 1968 campaign for Vice President, drove from
New Jersey with his young son. Both wore Muskie lapel
buttons.
Like other former staffers, Albright joked about
Muskie's legendary temper, his endless questioning and his
use of ``incorrect vocabulary.''
``Sometimes working for you wasn't a day at the beach,''
Leon Billings said in his eulogy to Muskie, drawing
laughter. Billings was Muskie's former chief of staff, and
often the target of his volatile temper. But, said
Billings, staffers ``had complete faith in his intellect,
commitment and integrity.''
Mitchell and others said Muskie's most lasting legacy is
his effort to protect water and air quality. Muskie was
the architect of landmark environmental protection laws in
the 1960s.
``Nothing surpasses what he did to protect America's
natural environment,'' said Mitchell. ``It's one thing to
write and pass a law. It's another thing to change the way
people live. It's yet another and quite difficult thing to
change how people think. Ed Muskie did that.''
Added Billings: ``We came here to say thank you for five
decades of public service and friendship, and most of all
we came here to thank you for being the first steward of
the planet earth.''
Speaking again to Muskie, Billings said that
environmental protection was ``a concept you invented, a
concept you institutionalized and a concept you
internationalized. You changed the way the world acts
toward the environment. That legacy will endure as long as
people breathe on this earth.''
a
[From the Washington Times, March 31, 1996]
Muskie Eulogized as Environmentalist, Negotiator; Carter,
Mitchell Speak at Funeral
(By Andy Thibault)
Two days after Edmund S. Muskie died, his family had a
birthday party for him.
``We drank a toast to him and sang `Happy birthday,' ''
the late Senator's son, Stephen, told more than 1,000
mourners at the Church of the Little Flower in Bethesda
yesterday. ``Of course, the celebration was bittersweet,
because Dad was not physically present.''
Yet, Stephen Muskie said, his father's spirit was
evidenced by the vocal inflections, witty puns, hearty
laughs and quiet contemplation of the sixteen family
members at the dinner.
The church fell silent as the son recalled sitting on
his father's lap 40 years ago by a crackling fire in a
cold Maine cabin, listening to his favorite story about a
bear who took his youngsters fishing in a motorboat.
``The story was replete with sound effects the public
never heard from Dad,'' Stephen Muskie said, eliciting
laughter that rang out regularly during five other
eulogies, including one from former President Jimmy
Carter.
Mr. Muskie died Tuesday at Georgetown University Medical
Center, 2 days before his 82nd birthday. He had suffered a
heart attack March 21.
He was buried with military honors yesterday at
Arlington National Cemetery. As Secretary of State in the
waning months of the Carter administration, Mr. Muskie
supervised negotiations that brought the 52 American
hostages home from Tehran.
``In the last few days of our administration, it was Ed
Muskie's integrity, his sound judgment, that made it
possible to bring every hostage home, Mr. Carter said at
the service. ``Typically, Ed Muskie didn't receive any
credit for that achievement.''
A four-term Maine Senator, Mr. Muskie gave up a safe
seat to serve Mr. Carter after a failed hostage-rescue
mission in April 1980. Mr. Carter, former Maine Senator
George J. Mitchell and other mourners cited environmental
measures such as the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the Clean
Air Act of 1977 as among Mr. Muskie's most important
legacies.
Industries routinely dumped waste into rivers and spewed
dangerous chemicals into the air before Mr. Muskie was
able to spur Federal legislation on the environment, the
speakers said.
``He helped us be better stewards of God's creation,''
said the Reverend William Kane, celebrant of the Mass.
``Any American who wants to know what Ed Muskie's legacy
is need only go to the nearest river,'' Mr. Mitchell said.
``Before Ed Muskie, it was almost surely not fit to drink
or to swim or to fish in. Because of Ed Muskie, it is now
almost surely clean.''
Mr. Mitchell, who started his career as a Senate aide to
Mr. Muskie, said fellow Mainers loved and trusted him
because he exhibited qualities they admired--independence,
fairness, lack of pretense, plain speaking and a
willingness to tell the truth no matter what the
consequences.
Leon Billings, a former chief of staff for Mr. Muskie,
recalled pressing his boss about a poor showing during a
fishing trip in Alaska with Mr. Carter.
``It's easy to catch them if the Secret Service ties
them down,'' Mr. Billings said Mr. Muskie had told him to
explain the President's success.
Mr. Carter disputed that point later in the service,
saying the Secret Service really wasn't that close to the
action.
Also speaking at the service was U.N. Ambassador
Madeleine K. Albright, who read a message of condolence
from President Clinton.
Mr. Muskie became a nationally known political figure in
1968, when Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, the
Democratic Presidential nominee, selected him as his
running mate. They narrowly lost to Richard M. Nixon and
Spiro T. Agnew.
Among the mourners yesterday were many Senators and
Congressmen, including Democratic Senators Daniel Patrick
Moynihan of New York, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut
and Paul Simon of Illinois.
Mr. Muskie is survived by his wife, the former Jane
Gray; two sons, Stephen of Peterborough, NH, and Edmund S.
Jr. of Reston; three daughters, Ellen Allen of Reston,
Melinda Stanton of Marshfield, ME, and Martha Muskie of
Washington; and seven grandchildren.
a
[From the Washington Post, March 31, 1996]
Muskie: Reason to Weep
(By David S. Broder)
Edmund S. Muskie, the former Governor of Maine, Senator
and Secretary of State, who died last week at the age of
81, was an apostle of civility and a politician of rare
vision, who battled constantly with his own temperament
and the temper of his times.
He was the No. 2 man with Hubert H. Humphrey of
Minnesota on the 1968 Democratic ticket--perhaps the only
ticket in my time on which both men clearly could have
been and should have been President. Instead, we got
Richard Nixon--some consolation prize!
The obituaries of Muskie were appreciative but barely
did justice to the clarity with which he addressed two
overriding national issues decades before most other
politicians came to grips with them.
As chairman of the Senate's intergovernmental relations
subcommittee--a backwater assignment if ever there was
one--he made it the forum in the 1960s for that favorite
issue of the 1990s, downsizing the Federal government and
shifting power and responsibility to the States.
That was hardly the mind-set of most Democrats in the
era of the Great Society, but Muskie and a handful of
others insisted that as the scope of governmental
responsibilities widened, the constitutional relationship
between the States and Washington needed protecting.
Muskie was not averse to activist government; he wrote
much of the new environmental protection legislation
enacted in the next decade. But he was wise enough to see
that many of the new domestic initiatives needed to be
tailored to the varying conditions of the 50 States. As
later events proved, he was right.
Muskie's second great insight was that Congress needed
to put its fiscal house in order. This goal has yet to be
achieved, but he was working on it 20 years before the
authors of the Republican Contract With America took the
issue to the country.
With the leadership of Muskie and conscientious
Republicans like then Senator Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma,
the effort quickly moved beyond partisanship and led to
the creation of the congressional budget process--now the
centerpiece of each year's legislative work. Muskie was
the first chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and was
instrumental in keeping the deficits minuscule by today's
standards.
All of this--plus a leadership role on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee--made Muskie a natural for
national office. He was the favorite for the nomination in
1972, but the Nation and the Democratic Party were being
ripped apart by controversy over the Vietnam War. Muskie--
an instinctive moderate who moved in small steps from
support of the war to opposition--was unable to satisfy
those who insisted that their position, whatever it was,
was the only morally permissible one.
As if that were not enough, Nixon and Spiro Agnew set
out in the 1970 mid-term campaign to convince the country
that Democrats were guilty of ``appeasement'' of communism
abroad and of crime at home. Muskie rebuked them in an
election-eve television address, as applicable today as it
was then, contrasting ``the politics of fear and the
politics of trust.''
But the man who preached reasonableness and
reconciliation was himself a man whose emotions were
easily provoked. And in the 1972 New Hampshire primary,
when Nixon operatives baited him (as we later learned) by
planting in the compliant Manchester Union Leader a forged
letter accusing him of prejudice, Muskie lost his
composure, alternately raging and weeping in frustration,
while denouncing the newspaper. The scene raised questions
about his stability, and his campaign slid downhill.
As a reporter on the scene, who still has a guilty
conscience about unwittingly helping the Nixon saboteurs
do their work by publicizing Muskie's emotional reaction
to their libel, I was saddened that footage of that awful
breakdown in the blizzard was being replayed more often
than anything else in the TV obituaries.
I prefer to remember him on a summer night in 1983, in a
big circus tent on the lawn of a State park outside
Portland, ME, when he joined the local symphony orchestra
as the narrator in Aaron Copland's ``Lincoln Portrait,''
entertaining the Nation's Governors, who were in town for
their annual meeting.
Muskie's admirers always compared ``Big Ed'' to ``Honest
Abe,'' not just because of his height and shambling gait
and innate candor and endless stock of humorous tales, but
because--like Lincoln--he could weep at injustice and
still proclaim his faith in the bonds of trust that hold
Americans together. That night, hearing that fine deep
voice of Muskie's intone Lincoln's magnificent words of
reconciliation at the Gettysburg battlefield, many of us
wept--as we do now at his death.
a
[From the Portland Press Herald, March 31, 1996]
As Sportsman and Statesman, Ed Muskie Was the Finest Kind
(Editorial)
He was the kind of companion any fishing or hunting
party would have welcomed. He did not want a boat load of
fish or a game bag filled with birds and other wildlife.
Ed Muskie was a cautious, capable sportsman and an
excellent marksman.
The political exploits of the former Secretary of State
have been well chronicled. But Muskie was also a good fly
fisherman and patient outdoorsman who loved to spend as
much time on a lake or river bank as possible. He always
fitted in, like a pair of old gloves.
He never sought special treatment; he could wait for a
strike while trolling Moosehead Lake or jigging a hunk of
cut bait through a hole in the ice at China Lake. If he
caught a fish he gave it all the credit possible. If a
fish got away, he cheered it for outwitting him and wished
it years of life in a clean environment.
I was interviewed about him after his death on the east
bank of a Maine river, the first to be cleaned up under
the Federal Clean River and Water Bill which Muskie was
greatly responsible for passing while in the U.S. Senate.
Messalonskee Stream was keeping the snow melt and rain
runoff between its banks. Overhead, a flock of Canada
geese honked, heading north to nest and perpetuate the
species. A bald eagle soared above, as the emblematic bird
had done for many springs.
``How was Muskie as a hunting companion?'' one of the
television interviewers asked.
He was patient but skilled. If he was in clear line to
shoot at a flushed pheasant, ruffed grouse or woodcock, he
would do so with accuracy befitting a veteran at the
sport. He seldom missed.
Muskie enjoyed fly-casting for wild brook trout and did
well at it. He was particularly pleased to be taken to a
wilderness beaver flowage, casting where a trout was
waiting.
His desire to partake of a perch fry once led to an ice-
fishing trip to China Lake with Lloyd Davis and Art
Thibodeau. Muskie's son Steve drilled holes in the ice
while Muskie cleared them. Muskie then followed
Thibodeau's instruction on jigging the baited hook and
caught his share of perch.
Bird hunting was another favorite Muskie pastime. It
mattered little what species were being hunted. He always
exemplified caution in the handling of firearms, whether
in a waterfowl blind or in wild bird habitat.
In an ice fishing shack after saltwater smelts, or after
grouse in dense woodlands or black ducks from a coastal
blind, Muskie was always the good, safe companion.
Hubert Humphrey once said of Muskie, ``He has qualities
of intuition, judgment, and wisdom. He carried them in all
walks of life.''
That is why he was a great sportsman.
a
[From the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME), April 1, 1996]
Nation Honors Maine's `Greatest'; Jimmy Carter, George
Mitchell Eulogize Muskie
(By Paul Kane)
ARLINGTON, VA--America paid tribute Saturday to the most
important environmental lawmaker in history, the man who
tried to save a Presidency from certain failure, the man
who turned Maine into a two-party State, the man known as
``the greatest public official in Maine's history.''
With full military honors and a 21-gun salute before
former President Carter and hundreds of others whose lives
he touched, Edmund S. Muskie was laid to rest on a crisp
spring afternoon.
Muskie, just 2 days shy of his 82nd birthday, died of a
heart attack Tuesday in Washington's Georgetown University
Hospital.
Barely a tear was shed as Carter and five others,
including two of Muskie's sons and former Maine Senator
George Mitchell, eulogized Muskie's unwavering integrity
and his willingness to take unpopular stands.
They celebrated his work as Governor of Maine, his
relentless pursuit of the Nation's first environmental
laws as a U.S. Senator for 21 years, his unsuccessful bids
for Vice President in 1968 and President in 1972, and his
diplomacy as Secretary of State.
``I turned to Ed Muskie as one of my closest advisers.
He was still a hero to me,'' Carter told mourners at the
Church of the Little Flower, the Roman Catholic church
just outside Washington where Muskie worshiped since first
being elected Senator in 1958.
Carter joked about his first meeting with Muskie, when
Muskie was running for President in 1972 and the young
Georgia Governor tried to curry favor with the Senator
from Maine, hoping for a spot on the Vice Presidential
ticket. Carter put Muskie up for a night in the Governor's
mansion, expecting Muskie to be ``more sophisticated than
I was.''
When Carter offered to make a drink, Muskie asked for a
scotch and milk. ``I was taken aback,'' Carter said.
Embarrassed at not knowing anyone who drank scotch and
milk, Carter poked his head back into the room: ``Sweet
milk or buttermilk?''
``Sweet milk,'' Muskie said. At his lowest moment as
President, however, Carter turned to Muskie again. In
April 1980, a rescue mission in Iran trying to free 53
American hostages had ended in failure, with helicopters
crashing in the desert. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had
resigned in protest, and Carter's entire Presidency was
facing an attack from Senator Edward Kennedy in the
Democratic primaries.
``I turned to Ed Muskie and I asked him if he would
serve,'' Carter recalled. Muskie stepped in as Secretary
of State, and in the Carter administration's final days
and hours in January 1981, his relentless work ``made it
possible to bring every hostage home safe.'' ``Typically,
Ed Muskie did not seek any credit,'' Carter said.
Muskie energized the once dormant Democratic Party in
Maine, and spawned a group of politicians and diplomats,
including Mitchell and U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright,
both of whom were Muskie aides.
Mitchell, former Senate majority leader, said few
Congressmen ever accomplished so much legislative success,
particularly with the clean air and clean water acts
Muskie wrote and saw passed in 1970.
``Ed Muskie changed things for the better,'' Mitchell
said.
Leon Billings, a Muskie aide for three decades, said,
``You changed the way the world acts to the environment.
That legacy will last as long as people breathe.'' Calling
Muskie, his ``hero, my mentor, my friend,'' Mitchell said,
``Just about everything I know about politics and
government, I learned from him.''
Mitchell laughed about Muskie's sharp temper, which he
demonstrated when Mitchell first met the Senator at his
first job interview to become a Muskie aide.
But the angry tirades would never last, Mitchell said.
Ed Muskie was not one to dwell on the negatives.
``Maybe that's how he got past the disappointments he
suffered,'' Mitchell said.
As the 75-minute ceremony came to a close, Edmund Muskie
made his final journey through Washington, police
directing a motorcade nearly a mile long through the
Nation's capital across the Potomac River and into
Arlington National Cemetery.
There, six members of the U.S. Navy Ceremonial Honor
Guard held a U.S. flag taut over the casket as Muskie's
pastor, Monsignor William Kane, gave the final prayers and
benediction. In the distance, seven soldiers fired three
rounds. A lone bugler played taps.
The soldiers then folded the flag, 16 times, into a
crisp triangle. It was given to Muskie's wife, Jane. She
walked away with the flag tightly wrapped under her arms.
Afterward, the family held a reception in the Capitol's
Mansfield Room. Six weeks ago, the same room was the
setting for Senator William Cohen's wedding.
A memorial service for Muskie will be held in Maine
sometime in April. Mrs. Muskie and the family are expected
to decide on the date and place sometime this week.
[From the Bangor Daily News (Bangor, ME), April 1, 1996]
A Cleaner Androscoggin Is Muskie Monument
(By John S. Day)
They came to say goodbye to ``Big Ed.''
With humor and fond memories.
A former President.
Diplomats, Senators, Governors, former staffers.
And many ordinary people who love Maine and saw the
State's rugged character personified in Edmund S. Muskie.
Jimmy Carter joked about outfishing his former Secretary
of State 15 to 1 during a stopover in Alaska. Contrary to
Muskie's popular slander, the 39th American President
asserted, Secret Service agents did not ``tie down the
fish'' and affix them to the White House fly hook.
Stephen Muskie, the Senator's oldest son, remembered
long-ago summers at the family's lakeside cottage in
Maine, and his father's imaginative way of telling
children's stories ``replete with the kind of sound
effects the public never heard from Dad.''
Leon Billings, a Muskie adviser most of his adult life,
recalled screwing up the courage to address his old boss
by his first name shortly after both men retired from
government service.
``So, it's going to be Ed now?'' Muskie answered
imperiously.
There were anecdotes about Muskie's legendary temper.
His vocabulary was often politically ``incorrect,'' said
Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations and former Muskie aide. Former Senate Majority
Leader George Mitchell relived the terror he felt during
his first encounter with Maine's political legend 34 years
ago. Mitchell was a young Justice Department trial
attorney in Washington trying to return to his Maine
roots. As part of his job interview with Muskie, Mitchell
was instructed to write a legal brief on a political issue
pending action by Congress.
``Unknowingly, I reached the opposite conclusion of the
Senator.
He didn't waste time with small talk. Instead, he
launched into a furious cross-examination of my memo,
taking it apart line by line,'' said Mitchell, who
confessed his knees began shaking during the
confrontation.
``I hope you'll be better prepared next time,'' Muskie
told the man who ultimately succeeded him in the U.S.
Senate.
``That was his way of letting me know that I had been
hired'' Mitchell said.
Muskie's legacy, Mitchell said, is the clean environment
we now take for granted.
The folklore of Muskie's activism is well-known. Upon
his arrival in the Senate in 1959, Democratic leader
Lyndon Johnson asked whether Muskie would support his
position on a coming vote.
Not having made up his mind yet, Muskie imprudently
answered that the clerk calling the Senate roll hadn't
gotten to the M's yet.
An angry Johnson banished Muskie to the least
politically attractive Senate assignment, the Public Works
Committee, which later would deal with pollution laws.
Despite strong opposition, much of it coming from the
paper companies that dominated Maine's economy, Muskie
eventually drafted and gained passage for the Federal
clean water and clean air laws.
The Senator often told reporters that childhood images
of the pollution-choked Androscoggin River in his hometown
of Rumford inspired him to seek a cleaner environment.
``There have been about 1,800 men and women who have
served in the Senate since our Nation was founded. Only a
handful have legislative records of accomplishment
comparable to Edmund Muskie,'' Mitchell said.
``It's one thing to write and pass laws. It's another to
change the way people think. He actually changed the way
the American people act and think with respect to the
environment,'' Mitchell said.
There will be many monuments to Muskie in future years.
Bridges and schools will be named for him. But there's a
stretch of highway along the Maine-New Hampshire border
that gets me thinking about the man. I pass along it two
or three times a year in my travels back to Maine.
I covered the Old Town City Council as a young reporter
during the early 1960's when Muskie was battling the paper
companies over clean water regulations. One of the local
councilors was an engineer at what now is the James River
paper company. He objected to the cost of a new sewer
plant being mandated by Muskie's Clean Water Act.
The engineer was an outdoorsman. He owned a canoe. He
was not a corporate shill.
``We have to face facts,'' he argued. ``The Penobscot
River has only one useful purpose now--to transport waste
to the Atlantic Ocean.''
I more or less agreed back then. Growing up in western
Maine, I saw what he saw. My high school teams played
against the mill kids in Mexico, Jay, Livermore Falls,
Lisbon and Madison.
The damp sulfur smell was the first thing you noticed as
you approached those towns. Next came billowing smoke
clouds and a canopy of smog. Finally, the rivers--so
polluted the stuff floated on top of the water.
Like the engineer from Old Town, I never thought the
rivers could be cleaned up.
A couple of years after that council meeting, however, a
ski trip to Sugarloaf got me thinking in other ways. Some
former college buddies and I struck out for the New
Hampshire slopes to round out the weekend.
Suddenly, along Route 16, there was a beautiful river.
The water was so clear you could see bottom rocks.
``What's that?'' I asked.
``The Androscoggin,'' a companion answered.
I didn't believe him at first. This couldn't be the same
water that down river was stinking up the mill towns in my
high school football conference.
Most of America's rivers now look like the pristine
stream I first glimpsed from Route 16 three decades ago.
Even the rest of the Androscoggin below the mills in
Rumford and Jay.
That's Big Ed's monument.
The air we breathe, and the water we drink.
a
[From the Los Angeles Times, April 2, 1996]
Ed Muskie and the Second Political Resurrection of Richard
Nixon
(By Howard Baker, Jr. and Alton Frye)
In the crevices of a great career, one sometimes
discovers true character. So it was with Edmund Muskie.
His many public roles garnered esteem, but perhaps the
most revealing confirmation of his quality as a statesman
lies in an unknown facet of his public service: Ed Muskie
was a central figure in the political resurrection of
Richard Nixon.
The story will surprise most people who knew the two
men, but it offers an extraordinary demonstration of how
concern for the Nation's interest can bridge the most
intense partisan differences. The tale is a tribute to
both men, exemplifying a civility and capacity to
cooperate that is rare among veterans of political combat.
In the early months of the Reagan administration, many
observers in both parties worried that U.S. policy was
tilting too sharply into a rigid nonnegotiable posture
toward the Soviet Union. President Reagan's rhetoric and
the policy impulses of some of his appointees were so
fiercely anti-Soviet that it appeared doubtful any useful
business could be done with Moscow. In particular, the
negotiated restraints on nuclear arms, so laboriously
crafted in the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations,
were in jeopardy.
By 1983, worry about the downward spiral in superpower
relations had crossed the line in alarm. Some questioned
whether it was possible to find common ground between
Republicans and Democrats on the divisive issue of U.S.-
Soviet relations. And even if there were the basis for a
bipartisan approach, how could it be framed to enlist
President Reagan's personal interest--especially if he
received counsel against the grain of his deep-seated
convictions about the ``evil empire''? Mutterings in
various Washington settings ran frequently to the theme
that, if anybody could tender sensible advice that Reagan
would consider, it was Richard Nixon.
But Nixon was still damaged goods, an outcast viewed
warily by the Reagan circle. To consult him was not a
natural impulse, particularly when some officials
considered him either too soft on the Soviets or too
likely to overwhelm their own preferred positions on
dealing with the Soviets. How, then, could Nixon's
strategic insight and diplomatic experience be brought
into play?
Pondering the question in discussions with us, Ed Muskie
recognized the possibility of doing so by engaging his
former political adversary in a confidential initiative to
offer President Reagan independent views from outside the
normal bureaucratic channels. For Reagan to take counsel
from Nixon in partnership with a former Democratic
Secretary of State and Presidential contender would be a
very different matter from listening to Nixon as a solo
advisor. The concept was intriguing and Nixon proved more
than curious and willing to talk.
As a first step in the delicate exercise, Muskie met
with Nixon at the New York apartment of his daughter
Tricia Nixon Cox. When the two old warriors sized each
other up, what was most striking was the total lack of
rancor. Whatever the residue from the bitter campaign
battles they had fought, not least the dirty tricks
perpetrated against Muskie by Nixon's lackeys in 1972, the
two men moved immediately to focus on their shared
concerns about the impasse in Soviet-American diplomacy.
Out of that initial conversation grew a sequence of
consultations that opened a channel for quiet advice to
President Reagan as he moved through the 1984 election and
into a more forthcoming period of negotiations with the
Soviets in his second term.
The consultations were fascinating. All participants,
including the authors, required confidentiality,
especially Muskie, for whom the risks in the collaboration
were greatest. It could have been exceedingly harmful to
the Democratic candidate (Walter Mondale) if the incumbent
defended himself against foreign policy challenges by
announcing that he was receiving advice from the previous
Democratic Secretary of State. To their credit, Reagan and
James Baker, then White House Chief of Staff and the
inside contact for the project, respected that requirement
and did not exploit the effort for political advantage.
(The venture did become public in January 1985, when Life
magazine published a photograph of a meeting among Reagan,
Muskie, Nixon and Howard Baker.) For his part, Muskie
informed only Mondale and did not discuss the substance of
the private exchanges with Reagan.
In preparing ideas for Reagan, the three outsiders
(Muskie, Nixon and Howard Baker) circulated a good many
papers, although the group did not meet often. But they
found their ideas broadly compatible and their encounters
memorable. Muskie and others involved met a different
Nixon from the one who had resigned his office. He
retained the extraordinary strategic grasp and the
workaholic habits for which he was known, yet he now
conveyed a good humor and cheerful detachment that made it
easy to be with him. The coiled-spring quality and
strained efforts at hearty camaraderie that marked Nixon
at the height of his ambition had yielded to a warmer,
more natural personality, albeit one still tinged with
formality.
At his New Jersey home or in a restaurant, Nixon was an
exceedingly gracious host, open-minded in discussion and
more comfortable to be around than one would have
imagined. An ultimate gesture of personal thoughtfulness
came one evening at Nixon's home, when be broke out a wine
bottled in 1914, the year Muskie was born. Perhaps to
their own surprise, the men enjoyed each other's company
and were reinforced in their sense that they could work
together. The cautious first approach from Muskie to Nixon
gave way not to a bond of friendship, but to a genuine
mutual regard.
The effort culminated in a luncheon session with Reagan
at the Waldorf Astoria on September 27, 1984, following
Reagan's address to the United Nations. What did they tell
the President? One point of emphasis concerned the
exorbitant verification standards being pressed by some
arms control critics in the administration. Nixon's
message was that adequate verification was feasible, and
he argued that Reagan should not allow that issue to be
the linchpin of the entire negotiations. Muskie
underscored the building blocks that prior strategic arms
agreements (SALT I and SALT II) could provide for the
major strategic reductions to which Reagan was already
committed. Given Reagan's advocacy of ``Star Wars,''
Muskie steered clear of arguments about strategic defense,
realizing that he was more skeptical of its promise and
more worried about its destabilizing potential than the
other participants. The conversation ran not to details of
nuclear theology, but to the statecraft needed to reverse
the dangerous turn that had developed in the languishing
relationship with the Soviet Union.
Whether that discussion and the group's other
communications had a major impact on Reagan's subsequent
movement toward strategic arms negotiations, no one can
say. But the tenor of their counsel certainly ran in that
direction. Perhaps most important, largely due to Muskie's
involvement, this series of efforts went far toward
legitimizing Nixon's emergence as a senior statesman.
The Muskie-Nixon collaboration was the prelude to
Nixon's continuing service in his latter years, including
the meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin on
which he drew for reports to Presidents Reagan and Bush.
By 1988, a private meeting with Nixon, flown to the White
House for that purpose, did more than anything to engage
Reagan in the business of that year's Moscow summit. As
Nixon spoke at length about the critical questions coming
up, Reagan appeared mesmerized. (That visit, by the way,
gave Nixon his first glimpse of his wife's portrait
hanging in the White House.) Out of his fallen
predecessor's return to service also came what President
Clinton has called the best brief advice on foreign policy
he ever received, a compliment to Nixon that Clinton says
his own advisors did not entirely applaud.
So there you have another vignette of Ed Muskie's
contributions to the republic. Not his greatest
achievement, but a notable measure of his magnanimity as a
man and his pragmatism as a political leader. Knowing that
his views would carry little weight if voiced by him
alone, he enlisted the perfect ally in a cause they both
considered vital. No statesman could have done it better--
indeed, it may be that no one else could have done it at
all.
a
[From the Ellsworth American, April 4, 1996]
The Man From Maine
(By Marvin Ott)
For of all sad words of tongue or pen
The saddest are these: ``It might have been!''
By John Greenleaf Whittier
Once again, we have been reminded--in a most painful
way--of Maine's extraordinary contribution to national
political life. Following close upon the passing of
Margaret Chase Smith and the retirements of Senator George
Mitchell and Senator William Cohen, we now have the
unexpected death of former Senator Edmund Muskie. To
understand how singular Maine's postwar record of
political representation in Washington has been, one need
only compare that of the two largest States, California
and New York, during the same period. It is an open and
shut case.
If Margaret Chase Smith was this State's most beloved
political symbol, Muskie was its greatest public servant.
He belongs to that small handful of Senators--Hubert
Humphrey, Richard Russell, Arthur Vandenberg, Everett
Dirksen, Philip Hart, Lyndon Johnson--who have shaped
modern America. He could have--with an even break from the
fates--risen still higher. There have been three tragic
``might have beens'' concerning the Presidency in this
century: the premature death of Theodore Roosevelt
(foreclosing an almost certain return to the White House),
the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the failure of
Muskie's campaign for the Democratic Presidential
nomination in 1972. No one has ever been better qualified
for the Presidency and this writer, like many others, is
convinced he would have proven a truly fine President.
Think how different American history would have been had a
Muskie administration come into office in 1972. There
would have been no Watergate and the whole sad legacy of
citizen distrust of the Federal Government and the
poisonous politics it has produced. Muskie's diamond-hard
integrity would have been a powerful antidote to that
whole tendency.
Contrast our current politics of top-of-the-lungs
zealotry and ill-informed certitude with these words
Muskie composed for a Presidential prayer breakfast in
1969:
Teach us to listen to one another, with the kind of
attention which is receptive to other points of view,
however different, with a healthy skepticism as to our own
infallibility. Teach us to help one another, beyond
charity, in the kind of mutual involvement which is
essential if a free society is to work.
Muskie lived by his words and spent his entire political
career working closely with colleagues of both parties in
a tireless search for common ground.
Senator Muskie's career was not one focused on foreign
policy. But it was a keen interest. His first preference
for a committee assignment upon entering the Senate was
Foreign Affairs. Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson denied his
request. Much later, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter asked
him to leave the Senate and become Secretary of State. It
was not a job Muskie had sought and many were surprised
when he accepted. The omens were hardly favorable. The
Carter administration was in a tailspin with the
President's political standing in the country melting like
a snowman in July. The Iran hostage ordeal made Muskie's
year as Secretary about as unpleasant as it possibly could
have been. So why did he accept the post? Partly, it was,
by his own words, the challenge. But it must also have
been that a President in trouble was seeking his help. It
was not in Senator Muskie's makeup to walk away from such
a request.
Surprisingly--and Senator Muskie would probably be one
of the most surprised--his career is likely to leave a
profound imprint on U.S. foreign policy and international
affairs generally. The reason lies in his role as the
original architect of America's environmental legislation.
For good reason he has been eulogized as ``the first
steward of the planet earth.'' We live in a political
moment when it has become fashionable to pretend that the
Federal Government can do nothing right and everything
wrong. Yet in the last 30 years, America's major rivers
and lakes have been transformed from toxic dumping grounds
into healthy playgrounds and the air, while not entirely
clean, has become far healthier for those of us who
breathe it. This miracle of public policy is traceable
directly to the landmark of legislation authorized by
Senator Muskie and his counterpart in the House,
Representative Mo Udall.
There are growing signs that environmental issues will
emerge as core concerns of foreign policy and national
security policy in the decades ahead. The Secretary of
State recently directed all bureaus in the department to
give environmental factors high priority in their
respective areas of responsibility. The Pentagon has
created an Office of Environmental Security. The CIA and
military intelligence agencies have established a program
to provide sensitive intelligence data to environmental
scientists. Environmental issues make increasingly
frequent appearances on the agenda of the National
Security Council. The impetus comes from facts on the
ground. China, for example, in its breakneck drive to
industrialize, is poisoning its land, water, and air on
such a scale that it will soon have serious negative
consequences for the entire globe. Most of this has
happened since Ed Muskie left government. But he laid the
foundation. It is part--and only a part--of the remarkable
legacy of a small-town lawyer from Rumford.
a
[From the Montgomery Advertiser, April 4, 1996]
Ed Muskie Still Heroic to Intimates
(By Edwin Yoder)
WASHINGTON--The tributes to Edmund S. Muskie from those
who knew him well show that even in a cynical age a man
can be a hero to his intimates.
I knew him hardly at all, but I can add a few firsthand
snapshots to the collection. They all suggest his
singularity.
The beloved Senator Sam Ervin Jr., whom I regularly
interviewed and wrote about during my newspaper days in
North Carolina, once told me in an interview that Ed
Muskie was the keenest intellect he had encountered in his
years in the Senate.
``If the Constitution ever needed rewriting,'' Ervin
said, ``Ed Muskie is one of the few I'd trust with the
job.'' It was a handsome compliment from one who was
thought of as the Senate's resident constitutional expert.
A year or so after this conversation, I moved
unexpectedly to the Capital to work for The Washington
Star and found myself surrounded by former Muskie
lieutenants. Berl Bernhard, the Star's legal adviser, had
been an aide of Muskie's in the 1972 Presidential
campaign. Learning of my admiration for his old boss, Berl
arranged a private meeting. We met one sparkling autumn
morning in Muskie's hideaway office in the Capitol.
I came primed with big questions. What was on Ed
Muskie's mind, however, was Campobello, the Nova Scotia
island where Franklin D. Roosevelt had vacationed, now
jointly maintained by the United States and Canada as a
memorial to the 32nd President.
Muskie served as a trustee and spoke of it with
transparent enthusiasm. The talk of Campobello led into a
conversation that stretched on through the morning about
FDR and his political legacy and the effect on our history
of the fact that Roosevelt, as a young man, had been
stricken with polio at Campobello. Muskie knew American
history and cared about it. It struck me that here, among
the outsized egos of the Senate, was a man with both feet
on the ground and his priorities straight, utterly lacking
in self-importance.
That was our only really personal meeting. Our last, far
briefer, came a few years ago at a Gridiron Club dinner,
the festive occasion of mutual kidding between press and
politicians. As we walked in to dinner, I found myself
beside the towering Muskie, who was now stooped and
visibly aging. I mentioned a recent newspaper piece of his
I had admired. Muskie had skewered a strange position
which the Reagan administration was advancing on the
interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty--that
the classified and inaccessible ``negotiating record''
shed more authoritative light on American and Russian
intentions under the treaty than what the Senate had been
told when ratifying it. Muskie's angular face lit up. His
heart was in an issue that most Senators considered too
esoteric to worry about. Muskie knew that it went to the
heart of the vital constitutional balance between
Presidents and the Senate.
Between those two meetings I learned something else
about Muskie, quite by chance. One fine spring day in
1980, a few days after the failed effort to rescue the
American diplomatic hostages in Tehran, President Carter
invited three journalists to lunch. We sat in the April
sunlight, just outside the Oval Office. Iran and the
hostages were on Carter's mind. The atmosphere was
pleasant and the talk discursive, and when the President
excused himself after an hour or so the three of us agreed
that the visit was social not journalistic.
Had we written about it, however, none of us would have
failed to mention the most startling thing the President
said--that he had appointed Ed Muskie as Secretary of
State (replacing Cyrus Vance, who had resigned) without
consulting anyone other than his wife, Rosalynn Carter.
``I didn't discuss it with anyone but Rosie,'' Carter
declared. I can't be sure at this remove, but three pairs
of eyebrows probably went up when he said it. As I think
about the revelation 16 years later, it seems further
testimony to the confidence Muskie inspired.
These are, as I say, snapshots. But all confirm what a
loss the Nation suffered when Muskie's Presidential bid
freakishly failed and we lost a chance to be led by this
good and brilliant man.
a
[From the Christian Science Monitor, April 10, 1996]
Remembering Secretary Muskie
(By David D. Newsom)
When Edmund S. Muskie died on March 26, the tributes
spoke warmly and accurately of his service as a United
States Senator and, especially, of his contributions to
cleaner air and water. His shorter but equally
distinguished service as Secretary of State is also worthy
of tribute.
From May 5, 1980 until January 20, 1981, it was my
privilege to serve as his Undersecretary of State for
political affairs.
Senator (he preferred being called Senator) Muskie came
to the Department of State at a difficult time. Secretary
of State Cyrus Vance, highly respected in the Department,
had resigned over the rescue attempt in the Iranian
desert. Fifty-two U.S. diplomats remained hostage.
Relations with the Soviet Union were tense; the Washington
debate over Russian policy was unresolved. State
Department personnel wondered about the new boss coming
from that other government on ``the Hill.''
The new Secretary quickly dispelled doubts. In his first
meeting, jokes obviously honed by years on the campaign
trail in Maine relieved the tension. After being sworn in,
Muskie called for a series of meetings with officers
responsible for various geographic areas. He wanted to
hear their views on current policies. Bureaucratically
skeptical, many officers first wanted to know ``where he
was coming from.'' They soon found out he really did want
to hear other views; some of the freshest discussions of
policy issues resulted.
Muskie's domestic political roots were part of his
everyday life. His heart was always in Maine, where he had
been Governor and legislator. Veterans of his political
campaign and Senate staffs like Leon Billings, now in the
Maryland legislature, came with him to the Department. He
used to say that ``the role of Secretary of State was
politics on a global scale.'' Ties to Senate colleagues
remained close but were tempered by a recognition that his
role as a policymaker in the executive branch carried
different responsibilities.
He found the same tensions that had plagued some of his
predecessors. President Carter assured his new Secretary
of State that he would be the primary spokesperson on
foreign policy. But Carter diluted the charge by stating
that Muskie would understand that he would, from time to
time, want others to speak out for him.
Shortly after he took office, we saw one of the rare
flashes of a Muskie temper about which we had heard
reports. He was to give his first major speech on Soviet-
U.S. relations. As we sat with him in a staff meeting that
morning, an assistant brought a wire-service item about a
background briefing given by a White House official on how
the speech should be interpreted. His color rising, he
left to phone the official. We never heard of any further
efforts to give advance ``interpretation'' to a Muskie
speech.
The Iranian hostage crisis hung like a sword over him
throughout his brief term, but he sought and seized
opportunities that might break the impasse. When a new
Iranian premier was appointed in April 1980, Muskie wrote
to him. Despite some advice to the contrary, he publicly
addressed the new government in Tehran. His gesture was
seen by the Iranians as a sign that negotiations might be
possible, and they began seriously shortly thereafter. The
hostages were released as he was making his final exit
from the Department, but, even then, politics plagued his
achievement. The new Reagan team refused his request to
use the State Department auditorium to brief the press on
the Algerian agreement that resolved the crisis.
Those of us who had the opportunity to work with
Secretary Muskie were indeed privileged. We were
associated for all too short a time with one who embodied
the finest traditions of political courage and public
service.
a
[From Commonweal, May 3, 1996]
Edmund S. Muskie
(By Abigail McCarthy)
let us now praise honorable men
When former Secretary of State Edmund S. Muskie died
recently, a neighbor couple came to call on his wife Jane.
``We always liked and admired your husband,'' they told
her, ``but we didn't really know that he was a great
man.'' In a way it was as if, like those neighbors, the
whole country came belatedly to that realization and to
the realization of what we owe him. But it was not only a
belated but a limited realization.
Columnist David Broder, perhaps, as he has been called,
the pre-eminent American political journalist, wrote that
Muskie was an apostle of civility and a politician of rare
vision. ``The obituaries of Muskie were appreciative but
barely did justice to the clarity with which he addressed
two overriding national issues decades before most other
politicians came to grips with them.'' One was the
necessity of equalizing the relationship between the
Federal Government and the States as governmental
responsibilities grew and widened. The other was the need
to put order into congressional spending, and in response
to that need, he led the way to the establishment of the
budget process.
Few people can and do appreciate these fine but
important points of governance and their effect on the
country, but we can all give thanks for Muskie's greatest
gift to us--clean air, clean water--a livable world.
Commentator Mark Shields said it best:
Before he began his work, there were no national laws
and no international agreements governing the quality of
the country's air and water. None. When he began his work,
nearly three-quarters of the nation's rivers were
unswimmable and unfishable. The Great Lakes were dying. In
too many places, the air was a threat to a child's lungs
and even to a community's life.
In no small measure because of the laws he wrote, 20
years later three-quarters of the Nation's rivers were
both swimmable and fishable. The Great Lakes were alive--
recreationally, economically, and spiritually. More than
95 percent of the lead had been removed from the Nation's
air.
To to that Muskie had to change the way people thought.
He had to stem the unbridled despoliation of field and
river and lake and terrain that for 200 years Americans
had accepted as necessary for progress. He had to bring
about a revolution in the way people lived and acted,
convert them from selfish heedlessness to healthy, sane,
and safe practices that benefit the whole community. And
he did just that quietly and effectively. How?
The way lay in his character. A striking example of one
of his basic beliefs is recounted in a letter to the
editor of the Washington Post after his death. Former
Ambassador Julius Walker told of a staff meeting at which
Muskie presided when Secretary of State. One of the
subjects was how the United States should vote on a
forthcoming resolution at the UN. All the attending
assistant secretaries advised against voting for it. It
might split the NATO countries, cause problems with other
states, etc. Secretary Muskie ended the discussion by
saying that nevertheless the United States would vote for
the resolution. ``Because it is right,'' he said.
Principle outweighed politics.
As Secretary of State he could enforce what was right by
fiat. It was one of his very human characteristics that,
as he often frankly said, he preferred being Governor of
Maine and Secretary of State--offices in which he
exercised final authority--to being in the Senate where
legislation was a matter of consensus. Yet he was the
quintessential legislator; almost reflexively, the
eulogists at his funeral called him Senator. He was the
master of achieving consensus, of persuading colleagues of
both parties to unite in support of ground-breaking and
politically threatening initiatives. He could do that
because he was fair, open to other Senators' problems,
deliberative, and convincing. But in the end he could do
it because what he was advocating was right and others
recognized the basic integrity on which his cause was
based.
In his tribute at the final service, former President
Jimmy Carter said that no man was more presidential or
more worthy of being President than Ed Muskie. That he
never became President is attributed now to the shabby
press handling of an incident during the 1972 primary
campaign, an incident unfortunately exhumed by far too
many news shows at the time of his death. He was a victim
of several of the Nixon-planted ``dirty tricks'' during
that campaign. He was finally driven to an emotional
public attempt at refutation in New Hampshire when the
infamous Manchester Union Leader was fed and published a
scurrilous attack on his wife. A man of deep feeling, he
is said to have wept. At the time his emotion and
frustration were depicted as signs of instability and
weakness. His campaign languished and eventually died.
Reflecting on this at the time of Muskie's death, David
Broder wrote that he still has a guilty conscience about
``unwittingly helping the Nixon saboteurs do their work by
publicizing Muskie's response to their libel.'' Others
noted the sea change in public opinion that now welcomes
and approves a display of feeling by a President. There
was ironic and touching evidence of this in the speech
Stephen Muskie, the eldest son, gave to gathered friends.
He spoke emotionally, with unabashed love and sentiment,
of a father dear to his wife, and five children, of a
grandfather who delighted his grandchildren with
mischievous play, and was met with emotion in return.
Great men are essentially human. Muskie could rage at
injustice but exhibited great reasonableness and a spirit
of reconciliation in working for justice. Like George
Washington, he contended with a towering temper as he
strove for moral rectitude. Like Lincoln, to whom he was
often compared, he had a fondness for humorous and
sometimes earthy stories and disarming candor.
Ed Muskie was a man of faith. Every Sunday at home saw
him at his parish Mass and, a world traveler, he sought
out a church wherever he was. His fierce patriotism was
rooted in his pride in a country in which he, the son of a
Polish immigrant, could achieve a professional education
and high office. He loved his books, especially histories;
he also loved golf and spectator sports. He believed in
his fellow man and practiced the politics of trust. He
walked by his own words spoken in 1970. ``The world is a
baffling and hazardous place, but it can be shaped by the
will of men.'' We shall miss him.
a
[From the New Democrat, May/June 1996]
Remembering Ed Muskie
(By Al From)
his leadership on a range of issues marked him as a
politician way ahead of the curve
Many Americans are understandably cynical about politics
these days. Raised on an unhealthy diet of sound bites and
photo ops, they see the political arena as a place where
enduring values are suspect, and where the honest exchange
of ideas matters less than the clashing of verbal swords.
Some of us, though, were lucky to be raised with a
different political experience, one that set an enduring
example that put cynicism to shame. We know that public
service can be morally and intellectually invigorating.
And we have an obligation to share that experience when
the occasion arises, as it did last March with the death
of former Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.
I worked for Muskie from 1971 until 1978, some of his
most productive years. He wasn't the easiest man to work
for. His temper was legendary, his cross-examinations
withering, his demeanor gruff.
But for those of us who worked for him, the lessons
about public service he taught by example will last a
lifetime; that integrity is to be valued above all else;
that public service is a calling, not a job; that ideas
matter in politics, and that making them real requires us
to move beyond political party; that liberty and democracy
are to be revered, even when they're disorderly. There was
no place for cynicism here.
Muskie's legacy is enormous. He was best known for his
pioneering work in environmental protection. How important
was his contribution? This is how former Senate majority
leader and fellow Mainer George Mitchell put it: ``If you
want to know about Ed Muskie's legacy, take a deep breath,
or walk down to the nearest river.''
Muskie's eulogists, however, largely neglected to note
his leadership on what today would be called the New
Democrat issues. His potions on a range of issues--budget
reform, Federal and State responsibilities in the post-New
Deal era, pruning away the deadwood in government, to name
a few--marked him as a politician way ahead of the curve.
In two groundbreaking speeches--to the Liberal Party of
New York in October 1975, and to the Democratic Party
platform committee in May 1976--Muskie delivered a blunt
message to his fellow liberals: To preserve progressive
governance, we had to reform liberalism. His words remain
remarkably apt today.
``We (liberals) failed in 1972 to reach a majority
consensus for liberal change,'' he told the Liberal Party.
``And on the eve of 1976, we face the grim possibility of
failing again.'' He continued:
How can that happen? After 7 years of a Republican
administration distinguished only by its failures, how
could the American electorate fail to vote for a new
liberal administration? When we know what's right, how can
so many Americans not follow our leadership? How can so
many Americans miss the point?
The answer, I submit, is that we have missed the point.
For in the past decade, liberals have developed an
ideology and state of mind that is narrow, unimaginative,
and often irrelevant. Four decades ago, we had discovered
the possibilities of government action to better the lives
of Americans. People were excited by the possibilities and
they prospered as a result. But something has happened
since then--and it's basically happened to us.
People still are discontented. They still want change.
Yet when the average citizen turns to us for help, what
does he find? Consider the 1972 national platform of the
Democratic Party. It was a wonderfully comprehensive and
esoteric document. Yet the results of the election showed
that the 1972 platform was irrelevant, for all practical
purposes.
For in promising so much for so many, it was
meaningless. The Democratic platform of 1972 represents to
me the culmination of years of liberal neglect--of
allowing a broad-based coalition to narrow, of
progressively ignoring the real fears and aspirations of
people, and of assuming we know best what the people need.
I read my mail, I talk with voters, and I listen. I find
people everywhere who can't cite from the Federal Register
but know what's wrong anyway. They feel victimized by the
economy. Their jobs are in danger as layoffs continue. Yet
all around them they see special interests which have
escaped these troubles if they are big and powerful
enough. Money and power buy access to government, whether
it's Lockheed or a firemen's union. Most important, they
don't believe that government really cares about them. All
they need is one encounter with some government bureaucrat
to confirm that.
A year from now, people will again choose their
leadership. What alternative will we offer?
Why can't liberals propose fundamental changes in the
structure of the executive branch that published this year
a 799-page manual just to explain its structure?
Why can't liberals start hacking away at the regulatory
bureaucracy where it keeps costs up and competition away?
Why can't liberals talk about fiscal responsibility and
productivity without feeling uncomfortable?
My basic question is this: Why can't liberals start
raising hell about a government so big, so complex, so
expansive, and so unresponsive that it's dragging down
every good program we've worked for?
Yet we stay away from that question like it was the
plague. We're in a rut. We've accepted the status quo. We
know that government can do much to improve the lives of
every American. But that conviction has also led us to
become the defenders of government, no matter its
mistakes.
Muskie expanded on that point in his speech to the
Democratic Platform Committee:
Some Democrats seem to accept waste and inefficiency as
a cost of helping people--a commission we pay for a
Faustian bargain to protect what little we have gained--
and that attacking waste somehow amounts to a repudiation
of the New Deal.
Well, all I can say is, what's so damned liberal about
wasting money?
I never heard Franklin Roosevelt say we had to reject
reform ideas because we had more to lose than to gain.
Instead, I heard him call for ``bold, persistent
experimentation,'' and say in 1936 that ``government
without good management is a house built on sand.''
The Democratic Party is still engaged in the debate that
Muskie began a generation ago. It takes a long time to
turn a national party around. But for those of us who
learned from him, it's worth trying. As he said in the
conclusion of his speech to the Liberal Party:
Plainly, we cannot move forward without questioning . .
. basic assumptions and running certain dangers. The
American people have already spoken: Government must put
its own house in order before it takes on new and bigger
responsibilities.
And as long as we shrink from offering an alternative to
a system of government people have lost confidence in, we
can expect to remain a minority.
Our challenge is to restore the faith of Americans in
the basic competence and purposes of government. We must
recognize that well-managed, cost-effective, equitable,
and responsible government is in itself a social good. We
must do this secure in the conviction that the first
priority on efficient government is not a retreat from
social goals, but simply a realization that without it,
those goals are meaningless.
The New Democrat movement did not emerge onto the
national political scene until long after Ed Muskie
retired from public life. But his powerful words, spoken
two decades ago, were the seeds from which it sprouted.