October 19, 1999

First, I would like to thank our former colleague and my old friend Jim Sasser for his gracious introduction. His acting as the host of tonight’s dinner makes it even more pleasurable for me to be here. It is particularly meaningful to me that Jim be the one to present this award for public service. Jim’s record of public service is impressive -- eighteen years in the United States Senate and more recently three years in Beijing as United States Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. It is wonderful to have him back in Washington.

I would also like to acknowledge CNP’s Chairman, Mike Barnes, and its President Maureen Steinbruner who have worked very hard to make this evening’s program a successful one. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not also extend greetings to Jane Muskie. Thank you, Jane, for taking the time to be here tonight.

I cannot express to you how proud and honored I am to be the recipient of an award named to honor the memory and service of the late Senator Edmund S. Muskie. Many in this room may be unaware of the fact that Senator Muskie was actually the first recipient of CNP’s Distinguished Public Service Award in 1982. The reasons for his selection to be the first individual to receive the award are self-evident -- his record of public service was lifelong and unsurpassed. Throughout his adult life he served his country and his beloved state of Maine -- first as Governor for two terms and then as a United States Senator for more than two decades.
Ed Muskie was a giant in the United States Senate. He was the author of virtually all of the major environmental legislation which became law during that 1960's and 70's -- including the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Water Quality Act of 1965. In his spare time, he was chosen by the Senate leadership to serve as the first chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and in that capacity he established procedures whereby Congress could begin to monitor the Federal budget process. During those years, he was always a voice of reason and bipartisanship on matters of international relations. It was for that reason that President Jimmy Carter asked him to leave the Senate in order to serve as Secretary of State during 1980, following the resignation of Cyrus Vance from that post. And of course he did a splendid job during the ten months he served in that capacity.

So you can see why I am so pleased to be here tonight to receive this award. As Senator Sasser noted in his introductory remarks, this award is intended to recognize contributions to American well being in the arena of foreign relations and in furtherance of U.S. national interests abroad.

I am especially pleased to be sharing this year’s award with Senator John Warner -- a dear friend and distinguished colleague, who is richly deserving of this honor.

It is certainly in keeping with Senator Muskie’s memory and CNP’s tradition of non-partisanship to confer the 1999 Muskie Public Service award upon a Republican and a Democrat. I believe that it is particularly important that CNP has done so this year.

The message it sends is clear, namely that U.S. foreign policy interests transcend partisan politics.

What’s good for America is much larger and more important than day to day partisan political agendas. To be effective “servants of the public” political leaders must rise above party politics and act in the people’s interests. No one has done more of that during his career than my dear friend and distinguished colleague John Warner -- often at a personal political cost. John is truly a statesman and a gentleman.

Today, America is prosperous and at peace -- surrounded by a growing number of democratic nations around the globe. Yet, there are no guarantees that either will continue in perpetuity, in the absence of effective and judicious stewardship of America’s interests.

Just as a return to irresponsible deficit spending would serve to put the brakes on our economic growth, so too ill-conceived policies toward our allies or potential adversaries would jeopardize our peace and security.

The situation in Pakistan is a perfect example. Without doubt, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif must have assumed when he sought to dismiss General Musharraf that more than a decade of democratic governance in Pakistan made the possibility of military retaliation unimaginable . . . A fatal miscalculation on his part . . . A dangerous precedent for fragile democratic governments elsewhere . . . And, an important “wake up call” to all Americans, that we must not become too complacent about this “New World Order” in which we find ourselves.

New challenges and threats confront the United States as we stand at the threshold of the 21st century. The information age that has made instantaneous communication possible between any two points of the globe, has also provided the wherewithal for rogue states or fanatical terrorist organizations to pose a threat to peace and security worldwide.

In many ways the Cold War era was a simpler one than today’s. It was a bipolar world. We knew the actors, their actions were predictable, it was manageable. Yesterday’s rules no longer apply. Moreover, the so called “New World Order” is still but “a work in progress.”

The United States has an enormous stake in making sure that this so called “work in progress” turns out right -- that any new rules be based on principles of democracy, open markets, respect for the rule of law and a commitment to peace.

The very nature of our government means that the President and the Congress have a shared responsibility to come together in support of policies that will shape and guide the formulation of these new international “rules of the road.”

Certainly there have been, and will continue to be disagreements between the Congress and the Executive over specific issues and policies. And, some of these disagreements will divide along partisan lines. However, while these disagreements may be partisan, the process by which we work them out should not be.

Some in Congress suggest that it doesn’t matter anymore that foreign policy has become politicized. They suggest that the collapse of Communism, the end of the Cold War, the primacy of America as the world leader make “speaking with one voice” on matters of national importance unnecessary. I profoundly disagree with this point of view.

During the Bush Administration, for example, there were honest disagreements between a Republican President and a Democratically-controlled Congress, over the nature and timing of possible U.S. military engagement with Iraq.

The Congress had extended and serious debate, over many months, about when and under what conditions the United States should respond militarily to Saddam Hussein’s incursion into Kuwait.

However, when President Bush formally requested that the Congress express its support of his impending decision to order U.S. forces to engage in combat, the Congress proceeded in an orderly and timing manner to debate that request and to take a vote on the question. In the end, the President won not only a majority vote but the full backing of the Congress as an institution. At the end of the day, there could have been no doubt in Saddam Hussein’s mind that the Congress and the American people stood shoulder to shoulder with the President against him.

It is unfortunate that on the issue of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Senate was unable to resolve its partisan differences with the President in a similar fashion.

Instead, a small minority in the body forced the Senate as a whole to “rush to judgement” on a matter of profound importance to America, particularly to America’s children and grandchildren.

As I am sure you all know, the Senate debated the merits of this treaty for only a few days last week. A number of Senators, including Senator Warner, raised legitimate questions and concerns about certain aspects of the treaty, both with respect to its verifiability and with respect to the preservation of our nuclear superiority.

These were responsible areas of inquiry. In the normal course of Senate consideration of treaties as important and significance as the CTBT treaty, such questions would have been addressed in the course of extensive hearings and committee consideration of the matter.

With time, I am confident we would have been able to develop reservations and understandings to the treaty which would have ameliorated these concerns. We were denied that opportunity. The bipartisan efforts of Senators John Warner and Pat Moynihan to delay the hastily scheduled vote on the matter, unfortunately, did not succeed.

The entire process of Senate consideration of the treaty was flawed from the outset. Hearings were extremely limited. The Committees of jurisdiction did not have the opportunity to draft and approve the resolution of ratification. Supporters of the treaty were denied an opportunity to fully explain how the treaty would work.

In hindsight, the President probably should have attempted to engage the Republican leadership sooner in the process.

As you all know, the treaty was defeated. And with it, the dreams and vision of two former Presidents -- Eisenhower and Kennedy -- for the establishment of a comprehensive test ban were rejected. The overwhelming support of the American public for the treaty was dismissed out of hand.

The Senate ’s decision to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was premature at best. Sadly, it will have immediate and profound implications with respect to the future proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The rejection of this treaty sends a green light to non-nuclear weapons states that it is alright for them to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. The rejection of this treaty sends a green light to states with limited nuclear capability to accelerate their ongoing weapons programs.

I hope and pray that in the not too distant future we will correct these terrible signals before it is too late.

Partisan wrangling has also gotten in the way of United States leadership with respect to the United Nations. Despite all its flaws, the UN system remains indispensable. It was established in the aftermath of World War II to promote peace and world order. It is the only international organization in existence whose membership is global. That is why its legitimacy in carrying out its missions is universally acknowledged and accepted. Time and time again the US has been able to utilize the UN’s international legitimacy to further America’s foreign policy and national security interests.

Today, US leadership and influence in the UN is being jeopardized by our failure to meet our financial obligations to the institution -- obligations that we demand that every other member state fulfill. For the last three years, the United States Congress has refused to appropriate the more than $ 1 billion we owe in back payments to the UN. Despite the Senate’s endorsement of a bipartisan plan for resolving our debts to the UN, the House Republican leadership continues to hold the funds hostage to other unrelated issues.

The result -- we will shortly lose our voting rights in the UN’s General Assembly and thereby our ability to shape the budget and agenda of the organization. Once again partisanship is standing in the way of US national interests.

The time has come to unravel America’s foreign policy interests from the complex and confusing tapestry of partisan politics -- even if it is unrealistic to expect that politics will ever really wholly “stop at the water’s edge.” Partisan differences must be resolved thoughtfully and always with the interests of the American people coming first. The stakes are getting too high to do otherwise.

I do not underestimate the challenge of accomplishing this goal. However, those of us who believe that America’s interests are being undermined by partisanship have an obligation to do something to change the current divisive climate.

Among other things that means convincing our colleagues in the Congress and in the Executive that compromise on matters of foreign policy is not synonymous with capitulation -- that it truly is “good politics” to seek bipartisan consensus on matters of vital concern to America.

Perhaps there is a silver lining with respect to recent events. I sense that there is profound regret in the Senate and in the White House over how matters turned out. There seems to be a heightened awareness that the Congress and the President must be equal partners in resolving matters of extreme importance to our nation. I hope that this new awareness does not get lost in the budget battles that loom before us in the next several weeks. U.S. national interests will be ill-served if this is so.

Again, thank you for the honor you have bestowed upon me tonight.