[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 46 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3186-S3187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S3186]]
                    THE PASSING OF EDMUND S. MUSKIE

  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. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

[[Page S3187]]



                             WELFARE REFORM

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, it has been 37 months since President 
Clinton outlined his welfare reform goals. On February 2, 1993, he told 
the Nation's Governors he would announce the formation of a welfare 
reform group within 10 days to work with the Governors to develop a 
welfare reform plan. But welfare reform was not enacted that year nor 
the following year.
  Fourteen months ago, President Clinton declared at a joint session of 
Congress that, ``Nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common 
responsibility than our failed welfare system. It rewards welfare over 
work. It undermines family values.''
  In response, the new Congress passed welfare reform twice in 1995. 
H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995, 
received bipartisan support in both the House and Senate as it was 
being drafted. Yet, 10 weeks ago, President Clinton vetoed welfare 
reform for a second time. With a stroke of his pen, President Clinton 
wiped out the welfare reform American families need and expect. By 
vetoing welfare reform, President Clinton has accepted the status quo 
in which millions of children are trapped in a vicious cycle of 
dependency.
  Two weeks after he vetoed H.R. 4 President Clinton once again pledged 
his support for welfare reform in his 1996 State of the Union Address.
  The President also declared that, ``the era of big government is 
over.'' But his actions contradict his words.
  On February 6, the Nation's Governors issued their own bold challenge 
to reform the welfare state. The Governors' unanimously adopted a 
bipartisan--I emphasize ``a bipartisan''--blueprint for returning the 
power and authority over the welfare system, including Medicaid, to the 
States. Since then, the Finance Committee has held three hearings on 
the welfare and Medicaid proposals forwarded by the National Governors' 
Association. The Governors specifically built upon the welfare reform 
conference report rejected by the President.
  On February 28, Secretary Shalala testified for the administration on 
the Governors' proposals. Once again, we found that the administration 
has an incredible capacity to blow hot and cold air at the same time. 
While lauding the Governors for their effort, Secretary Shalala opposed 
every major provision of the bipartisan proposals.
  The Nation's Governors assembled again this week, this time in 
Palisades, NY, for a National Education Summit. The purpose of this 
meeting was for the States to share their ideas and strategies for 
introducing new technologies, standards, and assessments to improve the 
education of our children.
  The Governors invited the business leaders who will help develop the 
new learning systems which will combine education and technology. The 
Governors also invited President Clinton to address the summit and, who 
no doubt, pledged his support and commitment to our children's future.

  But among all of the dignitaries, there was an uninvited and 
unwelcome guest at the banquet. Medicaid, the uninvited guest, will 
consume much of the necessary resources intended for education and will 
leave only scraps for the education of our children.
  The insatiable appetite of Medicaid spending is limiting the ability 
of the Governors to fully fund education as they wish as Medicaid's 
share of State spending has nearly doubled in just 7 years. Its share 
has grown from 10 percent of State spending in 1987 to 19.4 in 1994.
  During this same time, the share of State spending for elementary and 
secondary education dropped from 22.8 to 20.3 percent. Higher 
education's share dropped from 12.3 to 10.5 percent.
  In 1990, Medicaid spending replaced higher education as the second 
largest State spending category, exceeded only by elementary and 
secondary education.
  If present trends continue, Medicaid will soon pass elementary and 
secondary education as well. As shares of total State spending, both 
elementary and secondary education and higher education are at their 
lowest point in memory.
  Between fiscal years 1993 and 1994, elementary and secondary 
education grew by just 2 percent. In comparison, Medicaid grew by more 
than 12 percent.
  These alarming trends have consequences in other vital services as 
well. Transportation's share has dropped from 10.6 percent of State 
spending to 8.9 percent. The broad category of all other which includes 
public safety, investment in infrastructure, and many other services 
has declined 3 percentage points.
  Another hidden threat of Medicaid is how State government is funded. 
Medicaid forces States to borrow more to finance the cost of education.
  States cannot sell bonds to finance Medicaid, so the cost and burden 
of borrowing is passed on to other budget categories.
  In 1987, 6.4 percent of bonds issued were to finance higher 
education. In 1984, 19.2 percent of bonds were used to fund higher 
education. This debt, of course, is ultimately passed on to our 
children. Even worse, as Medicaid spending consumes even greater shares 
of spending, leaving less for education, the cost of education may well 
rise beyond the ability of many families to spend their children to 
college to all.
  The consequences of the failed welfare system are realized in many 
ways. It spreads its ill effects throughout society.
  Now we find that unlimited entitlement spending threatens our 
democratic institutions as well. Mandatory Medicaid spending is 
draining State and Federal budgets. Governors and State legislatures 
are no longer in control of their State governments--they are being 
held hostage by the demands of Federal bureaucrats.
  Mr. President, if we truly care about the education and future of our 
children, we must enact authentic welfare reform. Medicaid is the 
largest welfare program and the threat of its uncontrolled growth is 
spreading. Without welfare and Medicaid reform, whatever President 
Clinton promised for education last Wednesday in New York, is certain 
to be consumed by Medicaid tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield back the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for roughly 10 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________