Bipartisan Policy Statements

Working with top national security leaders from both sides of the aisle, PSA’s bipartisan policy statements promote common-ground approaches to critical issues at the forefront of national security and foreign policy. These statements help create the bipartisan ‘safe space’ for building consensus among Democrats and Republicans.

Bipartisan National Security Officials Call on Congress to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism

Media Contacts: Jack Brosnan, Program Manager, Partnership for a Secure America, 202-293-8580;

Strengthening the IAEA: Technical Cooperation and Nuclear Security

The Partnership for a Secure America assembled a broadly based International Working Group to examine in depth the IAEA’s current funding structure and sources, and explore ways that non-state donors can better assist the IAEA in developing additional contributions for its nuclear security and technical cooperation programmes.

The Group was composed of individuals from seventeen countries representing all geographic regions of the world and each functional grouping of the IAEA. It included former senior officials from the IAEA Secretariat, former Governors or Ambassadors who represented their countries at the IAEA, and other experts with IAEA experience.

The International Working Group agreed on ten recommendations which it believes would help put the IAEA in a better place to attract, receive and utilize non-traditional contributions to its technical cooperation and nuclear security programmes. They suggested that the Agency should:

  1. Develop a Comprehensive Non-State Funding Strategy
  2. Strong Commitment of the Director General and Senior Management
  3. Improve Communications and Outreach Strategy: Build a Brand
  4. Engage with Non-State Donors: Create Public-Private Partnerships
  5. Address Transparency Concerns: Establish Metrics
  6. Modernize the Agency’s Engagement with the Private Sector
  7. Work More Closely with Other IGOs
  8. Identify Priorities Shared with Donors and Recipient Countries
  9. Solicit Support from Civil Society and NGOs
  10. Follow the Example of the PACT

Republicans & Democrats Agree: U.S. Security Demands Global Climate Action

For years, America’s intelligence community and armed services have recognized climate change as a threat to U.S. national security – shaping a world that is more unstable, resource-constrained, violent, and disaster-prone. This issue is critically important to the world’s most experienced security planners. The impacts are real, and the costs of inaction are unacceptable. America’s elected leaders and private sector must think past tomorrow to focus on this growing problem, and take action at home and abroad.

The U.S. Department of Defense has defined climate change as a global threat multiplier – exacerbating instigators of conflict such as resource disputes, ethnic tensions, and economic discontent. Operationally, they see its potential to prevent access to their workforce, degrade the security of installations, impede training and readiness, and impair force capacity. Through proactive efforts, the DoD is setting an example for preparedness. As a nation, we need to do the same here and overseas.

At this moment in history, the U.S. must grab the mantle of global leadership to engage other nations and overcome this challenge. Combating the consequential national security dangers posed by the changing climate cannot be done alone. American leaders must enlist international partners to ensure that all countries do their fair share. For twenty years, the U.S. has asserted that this is a global problem that will require global solutions. Now, with crucial actors like China, Brazil, and Mexico making earnest commitments, we have an opportunity to advance that approach.

The U.S. has always led on big global challenges. We must tackle this threat by mobilizing the strength and ingenuity of the U.S. government and business community to seek effective, financially-sound approaches. This takes public and private sector expertise, funding, and coordination. We can ensure a prosperous future for our nation by shoring up resilience and mitigation efforts at home, assisting vulnerable partners abroad, and planning past tomorrow – where Americans will live with the decisions of today.

A responsible approach to managing climate risk requires us to transcend the political issues that divide us – by party, region, and ideology – and implement an effective strategy that can endure and succeed. Our national security community is thinking seriously and planning long term. It is time for the country’s elected leaders to join them in doing the same.

Signatories:

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State 1997-2001
Birch Bayh, Jr., US Senator (D-IN) 1963-81
Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor 1997-2001
Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-81
Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State 2005-08
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense 1997-2001, US Senator (R-ME) 1979-97
Norm Coleman, US Senator (R-MN) 2003-09
John C. Danforth, US Senator (R-MO) 1976-95, US Ambassador to the UN 2004-05
Bob Ehrlich, Governor (R-MD) 2003-07
Thomas Fingar, Chairman, National Intelligence, Council 2005-08
GEN Douglas Fraser, USAF (Ret.), Commander, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State 2001-05
Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce 2005-09
Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense 2013-15, US Senator (R-NE) 1997-2009
Lee Hamilton, US Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99, Vice Chair, 9/11 Commission
Gary Hart, US Senator (D-CO) 1975-87
Rita Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute, 1992-present
Carla Hills, U.S. Trade Representative 1989-93
GEN Donald J. Hoffman, USAF (Ret.)¸Commander, US Air Force Materiel Command 2008-12
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, US Senator (R-KS) 1978-97
Thomas Kean, Governor (R-NJ) 1982-90, Chair, 9/11 Commission
GEN Ron Keys, USAF (Ret.), Commander in Chief, Air Combat Command 2005-07
Carl Levin, US Senator (D-MI) 1979-2015
Joseph Lieberman, US Senator (I-CT) 1989-2013
ADM Samuel J. Locklear III, USN (Ret.) Commander, US Pacific Command (PACOM) 2012-15
ADM James Loy, USC (Ret.), Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security 2003-05, US Coast Guard Commandant 1998-2002
Richard Lugar, US Senator (R-IN) 1977-2013
VADM Mike McConnell, USN (Ret.), Director of National Intelligence 2007-09
Robert McFarlane, National Security Advisor 1983-85
Donald McHenry, US Ambassador to the UN 1979-81
Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security 2009-13, Governor (D-AZ) 2003-09
Paul O’Neill, Secretary of the Treasury 2001-02
Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense 2011-13
Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury 2006-09
Thomas Pickering, Undersecretary of State 1997-2000
Mark S. Schweiker, Governor (R-PA) 2001-03
George Shultz, Secretary of State 1982-89
Gordon H. Smith, US Senator (R-OR) 1997-2009
Olympia Snowe, US Senator (R-ME) 1995-2013
Richard H. Solomon, President, US Institute of Peace 1993-2012
GEN Gordon R. Sullivan, US Army (Ret.), US Army 32nd Chief of Staff 1991-95
Frances Townsend, Homeland Security Advisor 2004-08
GEN Charles Wald, USAF (Ret.) Deputy Commander, US European Command (EUCOM) 2002-06
GEN Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.) US Air Force 12th Chief of Staff 1986-90
Christine Todd Whitman, Governor (R-NJ) 1994-2001, EPA Administrator 2001-03
Frank Wisner, Undersecretary of State 1992-93
R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence 1993-95, Chairman, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
GEN Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Commander in Chief, US Central Command (CENTCOM) 1997-2000

Protecting U.S. Security, Upholding American Values

The United States detainee interrogation policy can live up to American values and, at the same time, protect our national security. This policy, supported by overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation in 2005, states: “No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the U.S. Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”* Such principles can be attained by following the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. We believe these lawful, humane, and effective techniques will produce actionable intelligence while adhering to our founding principles.

To ensure the integrity of this critical process, Congress should conduct effective, real-time oversight on America’s intelligence communities. Failure to live up to these internal safeguards adversely affects the nation’s security and damages America’s reputation in the world.

* Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

 

Signatories

Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State 2001-2005
Howard Berman, U.S. Congressman (D-CA) 1983-2013
David Boren, U.S. Senator (D-OK), 1979-1994, Governor of Oklahoma, 1975-1979
Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense 1977-1981
David Durenberger, U.S. Senator (R-MN) 1978-1995
Lee Hamilton, U.S. Congressman (D-IN) 1965-1999
Gary Hart, U.S. Senator (D-CO) 1975-1987
Rita Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute 1992-Present
Carla Hills, U.S. Trade Representative 1989-1993
Thomas Kean, Governor of New Jersey 1982-1990, 9/11 Commission Chairman
Richard C. Leone, Senior Fellow and Former President of The Century Foundation
Carl Levin, U.S. Senator (D-MI) 1979-2015
Richard Lugar, U.S. Senator (R-IN) 1977-2013
Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Advisor 1983-1985
Donald McHenry, Ambassador to the United Nations 1979-1981
William Perry, Secretary of Defense 1994-1997
Charles Robb, U.S. Senator (D-VA) 1989-2001, Governor of Virginia 1982-1986
Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior 2009-2013, U.S. Senator (D-CO) 2005-2009
George Shultz, Secretary of State 1982-1989
John E. Sununu, U.S. Senator (R-NH) 2003-2009
William H. Taft IV, Deputy Secretary of Defense 1984-1989

The Cost of Inaction…

 

… Will be staggering

The effects of climate change in the world’s most vulnerable regions present a serious threat to American national security interests. As a matter of risk management, the United States must work with international partners, public and private, to address this impending crisis. Potential consequences are undeniable, and the cost of inaction, paid for in lives and valuable U.S. resources, will be staggering. Washington must lead on this issue now.

Countries least able to adapt to or mitigate the impacts of climate change will suffer the most, but the resulting crises will quickly become a burden on U.S. priorities as well. Both the Department of Defense and the State Department have identified climate change as a serious risk to American security and an agent of instability. Without precautionary measures, climate change impacts abroad could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world. In fact, we may already be seeing signs of this as vulnerable communities in some of the most fragile and conflict-ridden states are increasingly displaced by floods, droughts and other natural disasters. Protecting U.S. interests under these conditions would progressively exhaust American military, diplomatic and development resources as we struggle to meet growing demands for emergency international engagement.

It is in our national interest to confront the risk that climate change in vulnerable regions presents to American security. We must offer adaptive solutions to communities currently facing climate-driven displacement, support disaster risk reduction measures and help mitigate potential future impacts through sustainable food, water and energy systems. Advancing stability in the face of climate change threats will promote resilient communities, reliable governance and dependable access to critical resources.

We, the undersigned Republicans, Democrats and Independents, implore U.S. policymakers to support American security and global stability by addressing the risks of climate change in vulnerable nations. Their plight is our fight; their problems are our problems. Even as we face budgetary austerity and a fragile economic recovery, public and private sectors must work together to meet the funding demands of this strategic investment in internationally-backed solutions. Effective adaptation and mitigation efforts in these countries will protect our long-standing security interests abroad.

 

Signatories

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State 1997-2001
Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State 2001-05
Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor 1997-2001
Sherwood Boehlert, US Congressman (R-NY) 1983-2007
Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 1993-2001
Michael Castle, US Congressman (R-DE) 1993-2011, Governor (R-DE) 1985-92
GEN Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense 1997-2001, US Senator (R-ME) 1979-97
Lt Gen Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Fmr. Deputy Chief Of Staff for Plans and Programs, HQ USAF
BG Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., P.E., Ph.D., USA (Ret.), Fmr. Dean of the Academic Board, US Military Academy
Wayne Gilchrest, US Congressman (R-MD) 1991-2009
James Greenwood, US Congressman (R-PA) 1993-2005
VADM Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Inspector General of the Department of the Navy
Lee Hamilton, US Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99, Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board
Gary Hart, US Senator (D-CO) 1975-87
Rita E. Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute
Carla Hills, US Trade Representative 1989-93
Thomas Kean, Governor (R-NJ) 1982-90, 9/11 Commission Chair
GEN Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Commanding General, US Army Materiel Command
Richard Leone, President, The Century Foundation 1989-2011
Joseph I. Lieberman, US Senator (I-CT) 1989-2013
Richard G. Lugar, US Senator (R-IN) 1977-2013
VADM Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs
Donald McHenry, US Ambassador to the UN 1979-81
Constance Morella, US Congresswoman (R-MD) 1987-2003, US Ambassador to OECD 2003-07
Sam Nunn, US Senator (D-GA) 1972-96
John Porter, US Congressman (R-IL) 1980-2001
Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security 2003-05, Governor (R-PA) 1995-2001
ADM Gary Roughead, USN (Ret.), Fmr. Chief of Naval Operations
Warren Rudman, US Senator (R-NH) 1980-92, Fmr. Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board
Christopher Shays, US Congressman (R-CT) 1987-2009
George Shultz, Secretary of State 1982-89
Olympia J. Snowe, US Senator (R-ME) 1995-2013
GEN Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.), Fmr. Chief of Staff, US Army, Chairman, CNA Military Advisory Board
Timothy E. Wirth, US Senator (D-CO) 1987-93
Frank Wisner, Undersecretary of State 1992-93
R. James Woolsey, Director of Central Intelligence 1993-95, Co-founder, US Energy Security Council
GEN Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), Fmr. Commander in Chief, US Central Command

The Right Move for U.S.?

Today’s national security challenges are global in nature.  Threats like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and pandemic disease respect no borders.  The United Nations can help provide the global reach and influence required to respond to, or ultimately help prevent, these threats from becoming crises.  A truly unique body, the UN offers us the ability to communicate and collaborate with nearly 200 countries on a breadth of issues.

Whether providing famine relief, staunching nuclear proliferation, creating arms embargoes, blocking the travel and financial support of rogue actors, establishing global standards to prevent money laundering, or curbing the spread of pandemics like Avian Flu, the UN’s work enables the United States to reap real national security benefits that advance American interests and make us safer and stronger here at home. Our economy also benefits, as the UN procures goods and services from more than 3,000 businesses across the U.S.

No doubt, U.S. contributions to the UN must be judicious and prudent: accountability, transparency, and effectiveness are essential for any organization, including the UN.  At the same time, our ability to burden share with other nations helps defray costs, promote stability, and enhance the impact of our resources. Withholding U.S. funding weakens both our influence and support for our national priorities, while strengthening the hands of our adversaries.

By actively using all of the real foreign policy, national security and economic tools at our disposal, we help develop the international knowledge, capability and capacity required to help address challenges that, if left to fester, land on our doorstep.  We, the undersigned Republicans and Democrats, believe that support of the UN is one of the most cost-effective ways for the U.S. to successfully address global challenges and leverage our global leadership.

 

Signatories

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State 1997-2001
Howard Baker, US Senator (R-TN) 1967-85
Samuel Berger, National Security Advisor 1997-2001
General Charles Boyd, USAF (Ret.)
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense 1997-2001
John Danforth, US Senator (R-MO) 1977-95
Chuck Hagel, US Senator (R-NE) 1997-2009
Lee Hamilton, US Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99; Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board
Gary Hart, US Senator (D-CO) 1975-87
Rita Hauser, Chair, International Peace Institute
Carla Hills, US Trade Representative 1989-93
Thomas Kean, Governor (R-NJ) 1982-90; 9/11 Commission Chair
Zalmay Khalilzad, Ambassador to the UN 2007-09
Donald McHenry, Ambassador to the UN 1979-81
George Mitchell, US Senator (D-ME) 1980-95
John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State 2007-09
Sam Nunn, US Senator (D-GA) 1972-96
William Perry, Secretary of Defense 1994-97
Thomas Pickering, Under Secretary of State 1997-2000
Bill Richardson, Ambassador to the UN 1997-98
Warren Rudman, US Senator (R-NH) 1980-92; Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board
George Shultz, Secretary of State 1982-89
Alan Simpson, US Senator (R-WY) 1979-97
Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State 1994-2001
John W. Warner, US Senator (R-VA) 1979-2009
John Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State 1985-88
Timothy Wirth, US Senator (D-CO) 1987-93
Frank Wisner, Under Secretary of State 1992-93
Andrew Young, Ambassador to the UN 1977-79
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.)

Iran’s Political System

Iran’s Political System and Its Implications for US Policy
July 2011

This paper by Dr. Peter Jones, Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, provides an overview of the Iranian political system, the roles of officials within this system, and implications of a dynamic Iranian political landscape on future US foreign policy.

The Islamic Republic of Iran poses a particularly vexing set of problems for U.S. policy-makers. Its seemingly impenetrable political process and highly ideological approach make it a very difficult interlocutor. But policy-makers need to understand and engage Iran. Left to fester on its own, Iran could pose an even worse set of headaches.

This paper provides an overview of the Iranian system, one of the most complex, unusual and factionalised in the world. It will explain Iran’s constitutional arrangements and then explore how politics really works in Iran. The paper will then discuss what this means for U.S. policy- makers. It should be noted at the outset that this paper contains no magic formula for making everything alright. Such a magic bullet probably does not exist.

Transparency = Security

Nuclear arms control is a critical pillar of America’s national security. Negotiated agreements to reduce the threat posed by the Cold War nuclear arms race have always enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the U.S.

In 1982, President Reagan proposed that the U.S. and the Soviet Union reduce their nuclear arsenals by thousands of warheads each. This proposal became the basis for the 1991 START I treaty. Since that time, every U.S. President, in concert with Russia, has advanced President Reagan’s legacy through steady and prudent reductions of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals, including the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, signed by Presidents Bush and Putin.

On April 8, 2010, Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the new START treaty, agreeing to further reduce both sides’ arsenals and bring into force a new regime for inspections and verification. This was a necessary and appropriate step toward safeguarding our national security. Without the new START, the U.S. has no legally binding ability to conduct inspections of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, and would be in a far weaker position to lead the world in stopping nuclear proliferation.

Now is the time for a thorough and balanced national discussion about nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. But we must remember that a world without a binding U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons agreement is a much more dangerous world. We, the undersigned Republicans and Democrats, support the new START treaty because we believe that it:

  • Enhances stability, transparency and predictability between the world’s two largest nuclear powers, which together possess about 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons
  • Contains verification and inspection measures essential to U.S. national security and nuclear threat reduction as it relates to Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons
  • Addresses our Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and therefore assists in gaining cooperation from other countries on key nonproliferation priorities
  • Helps strengthen broader U.S.–Russia cooperation, which is important in responding to proliferation challenges from Iran and North Korea
  • Does not inhibit our ability to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal
  • Does not constrain our ability to develop and deploy missile defense systems

Signatories

Madeleine Albright Secretary of State 1997-2001
Howard Baker US Senator (R-TN) 1967-85
Samuel Berger National Security Advisor 1997-2001
Linton Brooks Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration 2002-07
Harold Brown Secretary of Defense 1977-81
Frank Carlucci Secretary of Defense 1987-89
Warren Christopher Secretary of State 1993-97
William Cohen Secretary of Defense 1997-2001
John C. Danforth US Senator (R-MO) 1977-95
Kenneth M. Duberstein White House Chief of Staff 1988-89
Chuck Hagel US Senator (R-NE) 1997-2009
Lee Hamilton US Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99; Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board
Gary Hart US Senator (D-CO) 1975-87
Rita E. Hauser Chair, International Peace Institute
Carla Hills US Trade Representative 1989-93
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker US Senator (R-KS) 1978-97
Thomas Kean Governor (R-NJ) 1982-90; 9/11 Commission Chair
Richard Leone President, The Century Foundation
Donald McHenry US Ambassador to the UN 1979-81
Sam Nunn US Senator (D-GA) 1972-96
William Perry Secretary of Defense 1994-97
Thomas Pickering Under Secretary of State 1997-2000
Colin L. Powell Secretary of State 2001-05
Warren Rudman US Senator (R-NH) 1980-92; Co-Chair, PSA Advisory Board
Alan Simpson US Senator (R-WY) 1979-97
George Shultz Secretary of State 1982-89
Theodore Sorensen White House Special Counsel 1961-63
John Whitehead Deputy Secretary of State 1985-88
Timothy E. Wirth US Senator (D-CO) 1987-93
Frank Wisner Under Secretary of State 1992-93

 

 

This project is made possible by the generous support of Ploughshares Fund and The Connect U.S. Fund.

At The Water’s Edge

Measuring Bipartisan Cooperation on National Security and Foreign Policy in Congress, 1945-2009
April 2010

This report provides the first statistical analysis of Congressional bipartisanship on national security and foreign policy issues, confirming anecdotal evidence of rising partisanship with hard data. In addition, the report analyzes causes of partisanship and provides recommendations for restoring the bipartisan center in Congress.

The past half century has witnessed a pronounced shift away from the tradition of bipartisan foreign policy and toward partisan polarization of all political debates, including those dealing

with the country’s basic national security interests. Experts, advocates, and politicians themselves have taken note of this trend, citing anecdotal evidence of a broad “partisan drift” in American politics. However, to date, there has been little formal study of the role of partisan politics in national security and foreign policy decision-making in Washington. This report seeks to address that gap by measuring bipartisanship and partisanship in Congressional voting records on national security and foreign policy from the end of World War II to the present. Based on this analysis of over six decades of Congressional voting, the Report concludes that there is indeed an overall trend of increased partisanship in national security and foreign policy voting, despite significant upward and downward variation in the short term.

 

Science Diplomacy is Crucial to U.S. Foreign Policy

The United States is and must remain the global leader in science, technology, higher education and innovation. Respect for American science and technology is evident even in regions where there are strong negative views of U.S. foreign policies – students from around the world still flock to attend our colleges and universities. As we seek to promote our national security interests overseas, we should turn this strength into an effective tool for U.S. diplomacy.

Many of our most pressing foreign policy challenges – energy, climate change, disease, desperate poverty and underdevelopment, and WMD proliferation – demand both technological and policy solutions. In these and other areas, U.S. national security depends on our willingness to share the costs and benefits of scientific progress with other nations.

Enhanced international scientific cooperation can also lead to greater economic prosperity at home. The U.S. needs new technologies and markets to create jobs, grow new industries and rebuild consumer and investor confidence. Sustainable international partnerships allow us to leverage limited resources and give American companies access to cutting edge research and expertise around the world.

We, the undersigned Democrats and Republicans, believe President Obama, the Administration, and Congress should elevate the role of Science Diplomacy in U.S. national security and foreign policy, and should work to:

  • Strengthen links between U.S. and foreign scientific communities as a key part of U.S. diplomacy;
  • Offer scientific cooperation and technological assistance as a bridge to opening broader dialogue with former adversaries and as an incentive to prevent conflict;
  • Bring the world’s top scientists and engineers together to tackle pressing global challenges like energy security, climate change, poverty, disease, and WMD proliferation; and
  • Provide funding for exchange programs, collaborative research, technical assistance and capacity building to fully qualified U.S. governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Now is the time to draw upon every tool of U.S. power to promote our interests in the world. We should make maximum use of a core strength of this country – Science Diplomacy.

Signatories

Peter Agre Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 2003; AAAS President 2009-10
Howard Baker U.S. Senator (R-TN) 1967-85
David Baltimore Nobel Prize, Physiology or Medicine, 1975
Samuel Berger National Security Advisor 1997-2001
Vinton G. Cerf Vice President & Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
Rita Colwell Director, National Science Foundation 1998-2004
Paula J. Dobriansky Under Secretary of State 2001-09
Slade Gorton U.S. Senator (R-WA) 1981-87, 1989-2001
Lee Hamilton U.S. Congressman (D-IN) 1965-99; PSA Co-Chair
Gary Hart U.S. Senator (D-CO) 1975-87
Siegfried S. Hecker Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory 1986-97
Carla Hills U.S. Trade Representative 1989-93
Roald Hoffmann Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 1981
Alice Huang President, AAAS 2010-11
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker U.S. Senator (R-KS) 1978-97
Thomas Kean Governor, New Jersey 1982-90; 9/11 Commission Chair
Neal Lane Science Advisor to the President 1998-2001
David Lee Nobel Prize, Physics, 1996
John Lehman Secretary of the Navy 1981-87
John H. Marburger III Science Advisor to the President 2001-09
William Perry Secretary of Defense 1994-97
Thomas Pickering Under Secretary of State 1997-2000; Chair, CRDF Advisory Council
Peter Raven Director, Missouri Botanical Garden
John Whitehead Deputy Secretary of State 1985-88
Frank Wisner Under Secretary of State 1992-93
William Wulf President, National Academy of Engineering 1996-2007; Vice-Chair, CRDF Board of Directors

 

 

 

 

Please read the Baltimore Sun op-ed on political science and the San Diego Union-Tribune op-ed on science diplomacy and conflict reduction, both written by Dr. Peter Agre and Amb. Thomas Pickering. In addition, please look at the San Francisco Chronicle’s blog piece on global security and scientific progress.

This project is made possible by the generous support of CRDF, AAAS, and the Richard Lounsbery Foundation.

logos_1

PARTNERSHIP FOR A SECURE AMERICA

1129 20th St., NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel: +1202-293-8580
info@psaonline.org