[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.
                 
                                           
                 
