Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support an up-or-down vote on these judicial nominees. I have a great respect for my colleague from Delaware, and I do not stand up with pretty charts with big numbers. I am not a recovering State legislator or recovering city mayor, and I hope I am never a recovering parent or father. I stand up as a parent today, as a father of two kids, with the full knowledge and understanding that the work we do up here in large measure dictates the America that is going to be there for them. That if we are to follow the strategies on that side, the chart that my colleague showed would never change because we would never vote. That bipartisanship that is needed for legislation--whether it is health care or whether it is energy policy or whether it is asbestos reform-- would not be achievable because we would never come here to register a yea or nay on behalf of the people who sent us here. We are faced with difficult votes, but we take those difficult votes. We do not shy away from the responsibility that people elected us to come here and to make a judgment call and, more importantly, to be held responsible for it. The only thing I can think of relative to not taking a vote is that there are some who believe they will not be held responsible if, in fact, they force this body not to vote, that eventually people will wear down and that if we happen to seat someone that is not the best, the most qualified, that is OK because it saved this institution a fight. I will tell my colleagues I cannot think of anything more important if there is going to be a fight than that fight be on who we put on the bench. Now, today's debate, though we have a nominee up, I don't think is about one particular person because clearly we have not heard arguments that this is an unqualified individual. As a matter of fact, in seeking compromise there have been proffers now to this side that suggested: We will vote on five, but not seven, and you pick the two you want to chuck overboard. What message do we want to send to that law student out there who aspires one day to being on the bench and ultimately seeking a nomination by the President to a Federal court or to the Supreme Court? If you want to do it, understand you will go through personal character assassination; that in some cases you may have to wait 4-plus years to get there. In 1995, Senator Lautenberg stood on this same floor, in this same building, as a Member of the Senate, and he said this then when talking about fairness of the system and how it is equitable for a minority to restrict the majority view: Why can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on this without threats of filibuster, without threats of filibuster. Whether it was Robert Bork and John Tower or Clarence Thomas, even though there was strong opposition, many Senators opposed them. The fact is, the votes were held up or down. June 21, 1995. Senator Lautenberg. Today, he denies this Senate a vote on a judicial nominee and threatens a filibuster on all the nominees. This afternoon, Senator Kerry claimed it is dangerous for the Senate to limit filibusters on judicial nominees. Senator Kennedy and Senator Lautenberg joined Senator Kerry in defending judicial filibusters. But on January 5, 1995, just shortly before, Senator Lautenberg was on the Senate floor making the statement I read, all three of those Senators voted to change the Senate rules to eliminate all filibusters on nominations, motions, legislation--everything. If any of those three Senators had had their way in January 1995, we would have an up-or-down vote on these judicial candidates, but we also wouldn't have the ability of the filibuster as a tool in the legislative process. Some claim this is the start down a road to doom. It is not down the road to doom. Senator Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Kennedy voted for it and were joined by Senator Feingold, Senator Boxer, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Harkin, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Bingaman. We are not plowing ground that hasn't been plowed. If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman's agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took. Something changed in the last Congress. For the first time it was actually used. Now, in an effort to have an up-or-down vote, to have a process like I described in the last election to the people who elected me that I would come here and try to achieve, even if we needed to make sure that the constitutional option of eliminating the filibuster only as it exists for judicial nominees is removed, some suggest that would be disastrous for the Senate. Some of those same people in 1995 voted to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, for the legislative process, for everything, and they are the same ones who claim this would be disastrous to the Senate today. So much has been said, so many accusations, so many claims, so many revisionists of history. The reality is in a conversation I had with a high school student just this week, as she looked at me: Can you explain these actions on the floor? I talked about the 214 years that the gentleman's agreement allowed a nominee to get an up-or-down vote with no filibuster and the fear that we were reaching a point where we might have to make a decision, and the concern that existed in this Senate and around the country that it might be disastrous. She looked at me after I explained it to her and she said: Senator, with 214 years of experience, it is not going to be disastrous. Why would you wait so long to do it? The reality is that sometimes it takes years to understand what we have a hard time understanding up here. For 214 years the filibuster was not used, and we picked the best and brightest and got them on the bench and they guided this country and we have been headed in the right direction. If the choice is made and we have to choose to eliminate this tool, this is not a dangerous thing for the institution. We have 214 years of experience. We will be just fine. And the challenge will be to protect that filibuster as it relates to the legislative process. I am here as a new member, as a father, as a citizen, who deeply believes I was sent to the Senate to get work done. That work I do on behalf of North Carolina and for the citizens across this country. There is no doubt in my mind that I was sent here to do what the people of North Carolina heard me say that I would do, and that was to work hard and to accomplish solutions to real problems. There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees on up-or-down votes. I am not going to lobby my colleagues which way to vote, but isn't it common courtesy to allow these nominees to have some finality to this process? The judge that is up today, Priscilla Owen, has been in this process for 4 years. I have asked myself, even though I am not a lawyer by profession, would I stick with it 4 years? Would I put myself and my family, my friends, my career through the types of delays that she has faced? The answer is, I do not know. The question is, What are future nominees going to say when they get that call, when the President of the United States--whether he is a Republican or Democrat--calls in the future, and says, I need your service to this country, and they look at the precedent of 4 years, of 2 years, of 18 months, of the harassment, of the claims? Are they going to say ``yes, sir'' or ``yes, ma'am'' to the President of the United States? They might. But we might lose the opportunity at the best and the brightest. One month ago, I joined my freshmen colleagues in urging the Senate leadership to get in a room, to break the current impasse regarding judicial nominees, and to develop a process that was respectful of both parties, where judicial nominees, at the end of the day, receive an up- or-down vote. I said earlier, the Democrat's offer was: We will vote on five but chuck two of them over the side, and you pick which two. I cannot think of anything worse for the future of this country than for us to treat the best and the brightest with the disregard that proffer would suggest. I remain hopeful still today that a resolution can be reached. Many of us have worked toward a fair process where all judicial nominees with majority support, regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote. Let me say that again: regardless of party, receive an up-or-down vote. What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness. Let me be perfectly clear, though. I believe if one of my colleagues objects to a particular nominee, it is certainly appropriate and fair for my colleague to vote against that nominee on the floor of the Senate. But denying judicial nominees of both parties, who seek to serve their country, an up-or-down vote, simply is not fair. It was certainly not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution. Together, as Members of the Senate, we are advocates for democracy and for a democratic system of government. It is vital that we have a system that continues to serve as an illustration of effective democracy around the world. The integrity of our judicial system is so very important, and it will certainly suffer as a result of inaction. Obstructing votes on Presidential nominees threatens the future of our judicial system and the nature of the Supreme Court. You see, I am not sure that many Americans have stopped to think: Well, what happens if this is exercised for Supreme Court Justices? Because I believe in the next several years we will have one or two or possibly more Supreme Court nominees to consider. Well, the Court still meets. If we are not able to produce a Justice out of this fine Hall, then they will meet with eight Justices. I have to believe there is an odd number of Justices for a very logical reason. It was so there would not be a tie. On a 4-to-4 tie, what happens? Seldom have we asked the question. On a 4-to-4 tie in the Supreme Court, the lower court's decision stands. That means all of a sudden the Supreme Court, our highest court, the Court we look to to be the best and brightest to interpret law and the Constitution, is insignificant in the process. It means that whatever that court of appeals was--the Fourth Circuit or the Ninth Circuit-- whatever decision they came up with that somebody believed was wrong, and they appealed it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, on the merits of the case, heard it, would become the law of the land. My colleagues on the other side argue that the reason this is so important is because a Federal judgeship is for life. Let me say to them today, if you exercise this as it relates to the Supreme Court of the United States, and you jeopardize that there may be a 4-to-4 tie, the result is not for the lifetime of the judge you did not seek, it is for the lifetime of this country because that is now the law of the land, that an appellate court, whether it is the Fourth or the Ninth-- not the Supreme Court--that will be the ultimate determining factor as to what the law is that our children, our grandchildren, their children, their grandchildren will live by for their entirety. I urge my colleagues to consider the nomination of Priscilla Owen and all the Federal judges who enjoy the support of a majority of the Members of this Senate. I am reminded, as I stand here, that so much has been said that suggests this process has not been fair. I have looked back at some of my colleagues who have been here for years and who have experience I hope one day to have in this fine institution. Senator Boxer, in 1997, said: According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and to prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor. What has changed since 1997? I read this statement four or five times. There are no exceptions. There is no ``shall be'' or ``case of.'' It is very clear, ``given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.'' And Senator Durbin, who has been a regular in this debate, in 1998, said: I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. He went on to say: If after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down. They are either qualified or they are not. One hundred fifty days should be an automatic trigger that a judicial nominee should come up for a vote up or down--1998--no qualifications, no exceptions. Well, Priscilla Owen has been waiting 4 years. If we had accepted his challenge in 1998, Senator Durbin's challenge, 150 days after she was first nominated, this body would have voted up or down. I believe she ought to be voted on up or down today. I believe it is an injustice to the American people that a threat of a filibuster or the application of a filibuster will be applied to the judicial nominees. Madam President, I know there are a lot of Members who want to speak. I am convinced there will be truths and there will be half-truths that will be spoken as we go through this process. But I am also assured that every Member of the Senate understands the obligation we have when we are sworn in. I would urge my colleagues that obligation is not to a 2-year session of Congress. It is not an obligation to show up every day. It is not an obligation to be involved in committee work, or it is not an obligation necessarily to come up with solutions to problems. But it is an obligation to vote. It is an obligation that when you come in this body it is with the intent to vote up or down. I am convinced that when Priscilla Owen is allowed to have a vote, that her nomination will be confirmed. I am convinced it is in the interest of this Senate, of this United States, of my family, of your family, of the citizens of this country, that we proceed forward in whatever fashion we must to assure that vote takes place. I am convinced if we don't, the scenario of the inability to accede a Justice to the Supreme Court will cause irreparable harm to the policies, the laws, and to the future of this country. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also rise in support of two fine and highly qualified individuals to be confirmed to the Federal bench, Robert Conrad to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of North Carolina and James Dever to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Bob Conrad was nominated by the President on April 28, 2003. Bob Conrad is now a partner at the law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe, and Maw in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has served as a U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. He is a graduate of Clemson University and the University of Virginia Law School. Bob Conrad possesses the qualities necessary to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge. He is fairminded, evenhanded, and treats all with respect. He has repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to public service and a spirit of impartiality and cooperation. Bob is also a devoted husband to his wife Ann, and he is a loving father to his five children. Today, we consider his nomination for the Western District Court judgeship for the great State of North Carolina. I believe Bob Conrad's integrity, compassion, and intelligence have earned him strong bipartisan support, and he will again serve ably as a representative of our country. I am pleased that almost 2 years since his nomination, Bob Conrad will be confirmed by the Senate. President Bush has also nominated James Dever to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina on May 22, 2002. After almost 3 years, James Dever's nomination is now reaching the floor for a vote. He served as U.S. Magistrate Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District for North Carolina since 2004. Prior to that, the judge was a member of the Raleigh law firm of Maupin Taylor, and Judge Dever graduated with high honors from Notre Dame, where he attended on a 4-year ROTC scholarship. Judge Dever also graduated with high honors from Duke University Law School, where he was editor and chief of the Duke Law Journal. Judge Dever also served his country in the U.S. Air Force. The Eastern District post to which Judge Dever has been nominated is the longest district court vacancy in the nation. In fact, it has been vacant since 1997. In 1999, the Administrative Office of the Courts declared the district as a judicial emergency, and it has been categorized that way for the last 6 years. For some time, the State of North Carolina has felt the absence of U.S. District Court Judges. However, the Eastern District in particular, which comprises almost half of the counties in North Carolina and has over 3 million people, has arguably suffered the most. James Dever will bring to this post the qualities and character that will continue to make North Carolinians proud of him. James Dever is highly regarded by his colleagues and he has a record of public service. He is a bright, accomplished individual with a proven record. His supportive family includes his loving wife Amy and their three children. Today I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of these two esteemed attorneys. North Carolina, and the United States as a whole, will benefit substantially from the confirmation of these well-respected men to the Federal bench. I yield back all time and call for the question.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise to talk about the overdue need for a long-term domestic energy plan, one that reflects the needs of a 21st century economy that will depend on a reliable, modernized electric grid. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced bipartisan, comprehensive energy legislation in each of the three previous Congresses and, as a member of that body's Energy and Commerce Committee, examined and investigated the energy crisis in California and the massive blackouts in the Northeast two summers ago. Out of these two fiascoes emerged a common theme: Without an aggressive rehabilitation and modernization of this Nation's transmission grid, we are bound for more brownouts, blackouts, and forced outages, and an inability to deal with the capacity needs of an economy that grows in the future. Earlier this year, I introduced, along with Senators Landrieu and Lott, S. 498, the Interstate Transmission Act, which addresses the fundamental elements necessary for a successful electricity policy. The bill sets out to achieve three goals: No. 1, to ensure reliability; No. 2, to modernize the transmission grid; No. 3, to reaffirm the role of State and Federal regulators. In this year's State of the Union Address, President Bush challenged the Congress to pass an energy bill that modernizes the electricity grid. S. 498 achieves exactly that goal. How do we do it? No. 1, mandatory reliability standards. The Interstate Transmission Act makes a mandatory set of reliability standards for the electric grid. Currently, the North American Electric Reliability Council, or, as we call it, NERC, has standards and guidelines and criteria for assuring the transmission of electricity through the system is secure and reliable. However, compliance with the standards of NERC is voluntary. It is not subject to any Government oversight. The standards in our bill are the product of consensus and cooperation, and the language is identical to the reliability language from the energy conference report that received 58 votes in the Senate. In its 2004 report on the U.S.-Canadian blackout of 2003, the bilateral committee tasked with investigating the blackout made as its No. 1 recommendation that Congress enact mandatory reliability standards. Without mandatory rules on the books for reliability standards, we will continue to leave our grid and our country vulnerable to another massive blackout like the one the Northeast experienced. No. 2, we need to attract new investment in transmission. While investment in the generation sector of electricity has resulted in the construction of new powerplants, these gains in supply are negated by a substandard electric transmission grid. It is estimated that the transmission investment over the past 25 years has declined at a rate of $115 million per year. Additional research further indicates that there needs to be an investment of at least $56 billion in the transmission sector to upgrade existing lines and add additional capacity in order to meet existing peak electricity demands over the course of the next decade. It is currently projected, however, that the industry will only spend an average of $3 billion each year during the decade on upgrades and new transmission lines. Wall Street is not promoting the transmission sector as a worthy investment. Why? Because it is not particularly profitable to invest in transmission today because it takes over 30 years to realize gains on transmission investments. Even with the good news we continue to hear about the economy, people can invest in other places and realize greater profits and quicker returns on their investment. Thus regulators must implement policies that ensure quicker, more attractive returns on investment in transmission. The legislation I have introduced allows FERC to adopt transmission rules to promote capital investment in the system, improve operation of the system, and allow for returns to investors reflecting financial, operational, and other risks inherent in transmission investments. Let me give you a great example of how innovative capital investments can spur the upgrade of the grid. It is estimated that electricity consumption in the West has grown 60 percent in the last 20 years. Yet transmission capacity has only grown 20 percent. Last week, the Governors of California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming unveiled the ``Frontier Line Project,'' a series of new transmission lines spanning 1,300 miles from Wyoming to California. Knowing of how fast southern California and Nevada are growing, it would seem that as an investor, one would naturally be drawn to providing capital to build out this project. Yet these Governors are relying on State money and matching funds from DOE to make up the $2 billion it will cost to have the lines up and running by 2011. Granted the utility customers receiving the power will pay back the States for the project, but is the rate of return on what looks like such a needed project so low that we have to ask cash-strapped States to put money upfront to pay for these lines? Mr. President, I sense the need to conclude. I believe my colleagues understand just how severe the challenge and the threat is to this country. We have to address these three things. We have to have a vibrant transmission grid. The Interstate Transmission Act will accomplish all these goals. In the State of the Union Address, the President made it clear that 4 years of debate is enough; Congress needs to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent upon foreign energy. I agree with the President that 4 years is enough. A fundamental, sound economy is only as stable as a fundamental, sound energy policy. I urge my colleagues to support S. 498. Let's get back on track and be prepared for the future.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I mourn the passing of a great North Carolinian. Clarence ``Big House'' Gaines of Winston-Salem, NC passed away yesterday at the age of 81. He is survived by his lovely wife, Clara, and by his two children, Lisa and Clarence, Jr. All of North Carolina mourns his passing and our thoughts, prayers, and blessings are with his family. Clarence ``Big House'' Gaines was an institution in Winston-Salem, where he coached at Winston-Salem State University for 47 years. Coach Gaines won 828 basketball games during his 47 years, fifth best of all time. To understand just how successful a coach he was, Gaines won more games than legends John Wooden and Phog Allen, and finished not too far behind Dean Smith. Perhaps Gaines' most successful season came in 1967 when he coached the Rams to a 31-1 record and an NCAA Division II National Championship. His was the first predominantly black college team to win an NCAA title and he became the first black coach to be named NCAA Coach of the Year. He went on to win eight Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association titles and was named the CIAA's Coach of the Year five times. Coach Gaines was named to the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame in 1982. Winston-Salem State University honored Clarence Gaines by naming the Athletic Department facility and the school's Hall of Fame for him. It would be a mistake, however, to merely list his coaching accomplishments. Clarence ``Big House'' Gaines was more than a coach. He was a community leader, an educator, a mentor and a father figure. His most important achievement was the near 80 percent graduation rate of his student athletes, a legacy that all college coaches should look to emulate. Coach Gaines taught school up to his retirement from coaching in 1993 and continued to involve himself in the lives of the young people at Winston-Salem State. His marriage and family served as an example to the young people he coached. In his memoirs, published last year, Clarence Gaines wrote that ``When these boys, most growing into old men themselves, continue to call their old coach and thank him for helping them get a college degree, it makes me proud to answer to the nickname of Big House.'' He will not be forgotten in North Carolina or in the hearts and memories of the many young lives he touched.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on another topic and ask that the time be charged.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge our leadership and the rest of my colleagues in the Senate to preserve the significance of our responsibility, enumerated in the Constitution, and to work together to address the judicial crisis that threatens to severely damage our system. As Members of the Senate, we each bring our own unique background and experience to this institution. And our progress as a body often requires us to make difficult decisions as individuals. While our individual positions on various issues will certainly differ, we must stand together to repair the judicial confirmation process in this body. Several judicial vacancies have been lingering in our courts for years, causing many jurisdictions, including one in my home State of North Carolina, to be declared ``judicial emergencies.'' It is our responsibility as Senators to respond to these judicial emergencies with action and determination. It is inexcusable that we allow judicial vacancies to linger for 6 years or, in some cases, longer. Such is the case for the people of my State in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The North Carolina Eastern District post is the longest district court vacancy in the Nation--a seat vacant since 1997. In 1999, the administrative office of the courts declared the district a ``judicial emergency'' and it has been categorized this way for the last 6 years. In North Carolina we face challenges on the appellate level as well. There are 15 circuit court judgeships in the Fourth Circuit but only one of these is occupied by a North Carolina judge. North Carolina is significantly underrepresented at the circuit court level. A great deal of this can, of course, be attributed to the political nature of the debate surrounding nominations to the Fourth Circuit. All North Carolinians deserve another voice on the Fourth Circuit. Judge Boyle, currently serving as a District Court judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, was nominated in May, 2001, by the President to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Judge Boyle as ``well- qualified,'' and has stated he would make an outstanding appellate judge. The act of merely considering Judge Boyle's nomination should not be a political issue for this distinguished body. Unfortunately, over the past few years it has become one. Before the 108th Congress, when Judge Boyle was first nominated, no judicial nomination which had a clear majority of Senators supporting the nomination was ever prevented from receiving an up-or-down vote. This current judicial confirmation situation is unprecedented. We should put aside the grievances that have prevented the consideration of judges through the past three Presidential administrations and work together to find a solution. As Senators we must face this crisis with optimism and confidence. Working together we must address this situation directly because I believe that our constituents do not hope for, nor do they expect, inaction from us on such an important part of our system of government. Partisan bickering or avoidance of our procedural challenges is not a responsible course of action. Let me be clear. I believe if one of my colleagues objects to a particular judicial nominee, it is certainly appropriate and fair for my colleague to vote against that nominee on the Senate floor. But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution. As our country plants the seeds of democracy across the world, we have the essential obligation to continue to operate as the model. The integrity of the judicial system is vital and will certainly suffer as a result of inaction. Maintaining our Nation's long-standing distinction requires that its legislature act to ensure harmony and balance among its citizens and its branches of government. We need to fix this broken process. We need to end the judicial crisis. And we need to vote on our judges. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am honored today to take part in the Senate's annual tradition of reading George Washington's farewell address to the Nation. I am truly humbled to add my name to the list of Senators who have been privileged to read the address. The address, delivered by Washington in the form of an open letter to his fellow countrymen, appeared in newspapers across our young Nation over 200 years ago. Then, as now, we struggle sometimes with Washington's words. We debate meaning and we debate intent, but perhaps our discourse is what Washington himself intended. Our independence and our freedom is, in fact, the source of our strength. I believe that the address is President Washington's call for Americans to look beyond divisions and to gain strength in our unity of purpose. Washington's Farewell Address to the people of the United States of America: To the people of the United States: Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me, still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite movement that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint councils and joint efforts-- of common dangers, sufferings and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern and southern--Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourself too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen, in the negotiation by the executive--and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate--of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such they are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all times, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate Union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.--But the Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions, that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country, that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable; liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of fraction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, forments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that the public opinion should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation's subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained and by exciting jealously, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity gilding with the appearances of virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealously to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall counsel. Why forgo the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world--so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that is must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish--that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have, at least, believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfuenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take--a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress, without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 310, which is due for its second reading today, be considered as having been read the second time and that the bill be placed on the Calendar under General Orders.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the time. This is indeed a special night for many people across this country, farmers who have struggled over the last 5 years, who have made a livelihood on the farm, because of a commitment to the land, and throughout North Carolina and many other States, we see the benefits of their success in the schools and the churches because it is their generosity that built the communities that, in fact, they live in. Because of that program that we put them into decades ago, which has now served as a noose around their neck over the past 5 years, the Federal Government has cut their livelihood by 50 percent. I ask anyone in this body who were in business before they came here if they artificially got 50 percent of their revenue eliminated, would they be able to survive? The answer is likely they would not, and the fact is that our farmers are not. This piece of legislation that this body will pass tonight will probably enable 10,000 individuals in North Carolina alone not to file bankruptcy this year. It is inevitable that communities will exist tomorrow because we are willing to step up and to provide the necessary help that they need. Mr. Speaker, former Senator Helms once said that getting a tobacco buyout through the United States Congress would be one of the hardest legislative efforts ever undertaken. He was certainly right about that. Mr. Speaker, not only was it a long road, it was an uphill road. The obstacles were many, but they have been overcome tonight, and I believe tomorrow both bodies will have passed this legislation. I would like to take the time remaining to thank those individuals who helped so much: My colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), individuals that for over 10 months met to try to strategize on how we move a piece of legislation, not that that was the richest, but one that could be signed into law, the single most important objective. We are not the first to stand in this well and promise people back home that we can deliver, but we are the first to be able to deliver. I would also like to thank the staff members who put their long hours in and probably spent too much time with each other: Brenda Otterson, Jeff Hogg, Michael Higdon, Megan Spindel, Jerr Rosenbaum, Emily Howard and Chris Joyner. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). He was truly a partner in this every step of the way. It is not often that we take an agricultural piece and we ask to put it on a tax bill, but let us face it. We needed a vehicle that could become law. I thank the Chairman for his willingness to work with us. I thank him for the informative response that we always had with the Committee on Ways and Means, and I praise him tonight for a great piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. This legislation contains a number of critical provisions. It ends sanctions on our exports, and provides tax benefits for our Nation's manufacturing sector. It provides tax incentives for businesses, including much needed S-corp reform. It extends important electricity production and alternative fuel tax credits. But it also includes a long-overdue and desperately-needed provision that is near and dear to my heart--and the hearts of countless farmers in my State and across the southeast: A tobacco quota buyout and repeal of the Federal tobacco program. It is hard to find an agriculture issue in my State that has taken on more passion--more emotion--than the tobacco buyout. My State's tobacco farmers--like their colleagues in other tobacco States--are trapped in the depression-era tobacco program. It is a program that promises little more than bankruptcy and foreclosure. It is a program that promises economic collapse for their communities. Today, at long last, we are taking action to restore some hope to our tobacco farmers and their communities. With the inclusion of the tobacco buyout and reform package, this Congress is extending a lifeline to rural communities that were built on tobacco, but have faced difficulties as tobacco use has declined. It is offering tobacco farmers a way out, and the assistance they need to transition to new crops. It is providing tobacco families with some certainty, and the promise of a better day ahead. It is restoring hope to those who thought that this city had forgotten them. The inclusion of the buyout in this legislation is the culmination of years worth of work. It has been a long road since Charlie Rose began his work on the issue in the early 1990s. It is a road that saw few travelers in the early years--but it is a well-traveled road now. So difficult has it been at times to see the end of the road that most people said it would be impossible to reach it--that we would never get to our destination. It was always just out of reach--just over the next hill. Over the years, the ``buyout'' took on an almost mythical status. It was talked about in feed stores and coffee shops in almost reverential tones, but people began to believe they would never see it in their lifetime. Former Senator Jesse Helms once said that getting a tobacco buyout through the United States Congress would be one of the hardest legislative efforts ever undertaken. He was certainly right about that, Mr. Speaker. Not only was the road long, it was uphill. The obstacles were many, but they have been overcome. I would like to take what time I have left to thank some of my fellow travelers on this long journey. We would not be here today if it were not for my colleagues Bill Jenkins, Mike McIntyre, Hal Rogers, Ron Lewis, Virgil Goode, and Jack Kingston. I would also like to thank their staff members, who put in long hours--and probably spent too much time with each other--over the last year: Brenda Otterson, Jeff Hogg, Michael Higdon, Megan Spindel, Jerr Rosenbaum, and Emily Howard. I would also like to thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their hard work--and for recognizing the critical need for this buyout. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have reached our destination. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution, and do so on behalf of the 400 members of the International Mountain Bicycling Association in North Carolina, as well as the 1,500 members of affiliated cycling clubs. It is appropriate that the House is considering this resolution today. On Saturday, I.M.B.A. brought together kids and adults across the country to hold the first ``National Take A Kid Mountain Biking Day.'' According to the Surgeon General, the percentage of youth that are overweight has nearly tripled in the last twenty years. Forecasts predict that the current generation of our children could actually have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. Childhood obesity is reaching epidemic proportions. Overweight adolescents have a 70% chance of becoming overweight or obese adults. NIH research indicates that the large increase in childhood obesity rates can be traced to overeating and a lack of exercise. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was drafted in memory of Jack Doub, an avid teenage mountain biker who had a passion for introducing others to the sport. Jack saw the need for kids to get off the couch, get outside, and get some exercise. After being introduced to mountain biking at age 11 near Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina, he won almost every cross-country race he entered for two years. Between the ages of 14 and 17, he became a top national-level downhill and slalom competitor. He actively encouraged others--particularly kids--to ride bicycles. He was a leader in every sense of the word. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 10. This bill represents the hard work and coordination of many Committees' of jurisdiction. The level of cooperation and collaboration that went into creating this bill demonstrates our commitment to bringing about real Intelligence Reform. This bill responds in a very serious way to the 9/11 Commission report. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I have seen ``first-hand'' the needs facing the Intelligence Community. The intelligence reforms proposed by H.R. 10 go to the heart of these issues--and provide the remedies to correct many of the organizational problems that contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. H.R. 10 addresses the major findings of the 9/11 Commission, in particular: It creates a strong and empowered National Intelligence Director; it enhances budget and management authorities of the national director; it improves information sharing by giving the director the mandate and authority to establish community-wide standards; it sharpens intelligence tools, particularly analytic capabilities; and it improves our ability to detect and deter terrorist threats. Taken together--the new organization, these capabilities, and enhanced authorities--provide the foundation necessary to empower the National Intelligence Director to effect real transformation throughout the Intelligence Community. While providing these new authorities, H.R. 10 carefully balances the authorities required to empower the National Intelligence Director to conduct the nation's intelligence analysis and collection operations, with the authorities of the Department heads who have to administer the intelligence elements that conduct and execute those operations. Those checks and balances ensure that the equities of the various departments are not unintentionally harmed--and I will point out that, unlike other legislation that we will consider here today, H.R. 10 carefully and rightfully ensures unfettered intelligence support to our armed forces deployed around the world. H.R. 10 also eliminates the creation of unnecessary new bureaucracies, unlike two substitute amendments that we will debate. The other major proposals being considered add layers of management between the Intelligence Community agencies and the National Intelligence Director. These layers create duplicative auditing agencies and burden intelligence operations with unnecessary review boards and councils. These layers will hamper the process of change not enhance it, and may even serve to prevent the dramatic changes that are needed. Finally, H.R. 10 creates an Information Sharing Environment which will handle the sharing of all intelligence data, not just that which deals with terrorism. The other proposals being considered limit the scope of technological change to simply one set of intelligence data. I can tell you firsthand--my experience on the Intelligence Committee has demonstrated to me that technological reform will come from the fusion and sharing of all intelligence data. Only H.R. 10 proposes to do this. It is a very good bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 10.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this misguided amendment that threatens not only the delicate balance achieved in passage of the international tax bill, H.R. 4520, but also the future of every farm program administered by USDA. Tobacco simply happens to be first. More crops will most certainly follow. To my colleagues who produce feed grains, wheat, rice, cotton, tobacco, dairy, soybeans, oilseeds, peanuts, sugar, honey, wool, and certain other crops: Your crops are next. It is also somewhat disingenuous for proponents of this amendment to claim that they are protecting the American taxpayer. If indeed ``taxpayers'' are impacted by the tobacco reform provisions included in H.R. 4520, the burden falls only on those who pay excise taxes on tobacco products. Any approach other than the one proposed in H.R. 4520 will actually result in a tax increase on those who choose to use tobacco products. If that is what colleagues really are seeking, they should say so. The facts, Mr. Chairman, are that tobacco and tobacco taxes raise more than $30 billion every year for states and the Federal government. We are only asking for a portion of this money over five years to provide relief to our struggling farmers and their communities.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I appreciate my colleague including me in this colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina is correct. This is an exciting and important work. With the Committee on Appropriations' financial and USAID's technical support, Iraqis have seized the opportunity to participate in government and have demonstrated an aptitude for local governance. They are working hard to restore services in their communities. They are drafting and approving procedures and policies to efficiently provide government services. They are prioritizing the needs of the people within their communities, and they are developing budgets to support those plans. The Iraqi people have discovered government that operates with the consent of the governed, and they are enthusiastic about it. Their representative officials have discovered accountability to the people, and they are eager to demonstrate their fidelity. There is still a long way to go in Iraq before the seeds of democracy that have been planted are fully established. We cannot be short- sighted with respect to these kinds of activities in our foreign operations agenda. We must make certain that the work started by such programs can be sustained as a partnership not only between the United States and Iraq but also through our foreign operations activities throughout the world.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, our enemies are watching us. The terrorists know it is an election year, and they want us to become divided. They believe that a terrorist act against our country will influence our elections. They have a belief that democracy can be divided; yet they underestimate the passion of our citizens and their patriotism. Despite the decision of minority Members to play politics with this bill, I believe we all are united against our enemies. These are serious times, and it is important that we send a message to our enemies that we cannot be divided. Support this intelligence bill. Send the message. It sends the message that we are on the offensive to eliminate the threats to our homeland. Our intelligence community needs to know the United States Congress supports them 100 percent. This bill increases the funding for the global war on terrorism. It increases by 22 percent our human intelligence. It supports our effort on counternarcotics to eliminate the 17,000 Americans that die every year from drug-related causes and the $160 billion annually in health care, social, and criminal costs. We have provided extra funding for the DCI to tackle this problem in this country. On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bid farewell to my colleagues on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I have enjoyed serving under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), and I think we are all fortunate that he was in the Chair immediately following September 11. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) was the right man for our country when we needed an intelligence community with expertise, intelligence, moral clarity, and compassion. We will miss him. I would also like to recognize the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who will also leave, and wish him good luck on his future endeavors. I have been proud to serve with both of them. Immediately after September 11, the esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations came to this floor and quoted the words of Sir Winston Churchill which he wrote 6 decades ago: ``Civilization will not last,'' Churchill wrote, ``freedom will not survive, peace will not be kept, unless a very large majority of mankind unite together to defend them.'' We were united on September 11. Let us unite today. Let us support the Intelligence authorization bill. Let us do it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time, and I thank both my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is a unique committee. We are selected by the leadership, we are asked to serve, we are asked to uphold the secrecy and the confidentiality of what goes on in that committee, and we are asked to reassure the Members of the House that do not have the type of access that we do that we are in fact doing our job. So let me assure every Member, Republican and Democrat, we are doing our job. There is a difference today, and I do not hold the individuals on the other side of the aisle responsible. I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) put it well, politics is alive and well in Washington. It is an election year, and I think that strings are getting pulled. And I make a pledge to the Members on that side of the aisle: That when this bill has passed, and I hope you vote for it on final passage, that we will work together in that committee. We will make sure that the tools are available to our intelligence community. We will make sure that the workings and the oversight are good enough that we can look our fellow Members in the eye and say we are doing our job. But I think today we need to look back at why we are here. Sure, we are here because of the intelligence threat that exists today and the need for intelligence to grow, but we are here because of the devastation to the intelligence community in the 1990s. We are here because human intelligence was not important to anybody in this town. We are, in fact, trying to rebuild. And when I heard Director Tenet stand up in front of the independent commission and talk about 5 years, here was a man being honest at what it took to recruit people that could infiltrate; that we could take individuals who could fluently speak Arabic. We have to remember that we went from a Cold War need for linguistics, which was Russia and Eastern Europe, to now a need for Arabic and a lot of different tribal languages that exist, and you cannot do it overnight and you cannot do it for no money. The reality is that both sides suggest funding levels at about the same, and that is above where the administration's request was. We have differences on how we get here. That is leadership and it is politics mixed in with it. I am confident we can put politics aside and we can get passed not only this rule debate but the debate on the bill. Because the important thing is that our intelligence community knows that this Congress is united. We are united behind them, we are united behind the effort, we understand the value of what they do as it relates to the safety of the troops that we have who defend this country every day. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to also highlight the leadership of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). This will be a tremendous loss to the Congress, the entire Congress. The dedication of this man, the leadership, his experience and what he has brought to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is invaluable. I am sure his years of community service are not over with his decision to leave Congress. But with him we lose a tremendous resource in our ability to understand and to become better in the world as it relates to our intelligence.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, today I would like to bring to your attention the opening of a wonderful new children's camp in Level Cross, NC. After years of planning, Kyle Petty, CEO of Petty Enterprises, and his wife Pattie have opened The Victory Junction Gang Camp. This camp is the seventh of the Hole in the Wall Gang Camps network founded by actor Paul Newman. The camp was created to serve as a retreat for critically ill children who deserve the chance to enjoy themselves in a medically safe environment, free of charge. The Pettys, a family synonymous with generosity, decided to create the camp after the untimely death of their son, Adam, in a tragic race car accident in 2000. After visiting one of the Hole in the Wall Gang Camps in Florida and seeing the joy it brought to the campers, the Pettys felt the children of North Carolina and surrounding states needed such a place of their own. All their hard work--and the hard work of the NASCAR family--paid off this summer. The camp's grand opening was Tuesday, June 15. Victory Junction is an independent, not-for-profit organization that relies upon the generosity of individuals and corporations. Over the past 2 years, NASCAR has graciously lent its support to Victory Junction through an extensive media campaign and the assistance of NASCAR drivers who have volunteered their time and energy. This summer, the camp will provide much-needed distractions to children afflicted with cancer, asthma, HIV, heart disease, and other diseases. Much goes into establishing and maintaining a special needs camp. Those that have helped in the planning and building process, and those that are already freely giving their time as medical volunteers, deserve our respect and gratitude. There could be no better tribute to Adam Petty. I commend the Petty family for their dedication to children and public service. I am so pleased that there is now a local place for some very special children to have an exciting camping experience and well-deserved vacation. Today, I ask my colleagues and fellow North Carolinians to join me in extending congratulations and support to the Victory Junction Gang Camp. May it enrich the lives of many children in the years to come.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues and the rest of the Nation to mourn the passing of one of our Nation's greatest Presidents, but also to celebrate his legacy. While Ronald Reagan is considered by almost everyone as an extraordinary leader and one of the greatest Americans, it was not Ronald Reagan's vision, his confidence, his charm or his strength that truly set him apart. It was his boundless optimism and his overflowing love and concern for his fellow men that made Reagan who he was and which were his underlying source of everything he accomplished. Reagan saw himself as an ordinary man, called to serve his country to the best of his ability, and serve he did. He inspired a Nation to rediscover the principles of freedom that have made our country great. We remember Ronald Reagan as a man who maximized his gifts from an unknown to an actor to a Governor to the leader of the Free World. Our President was one who never stopped growing and giving. President Reagan's life provides a witness to how we should all live, stirring up whatever gifts and potentials we have so that the world is a better place when we leave, more so than when we arrived. We remember President Reagan as one who named bad leadership for what it was, and turned his people towards a nobler path. He said the only places communism would work are in heaven because they do not need it and in hell because they already have it. Today, we are enjoying a world where communism is de-fanged and former communist nations rank among our closest allies, much of which is due to President Reagan's unflinching commitment and resolve to seeing peace and freedom flourish throughout the world. President Reagan was a true man of the people. What Reagan did more than anything else, and it will be his lasting legacy, is replace despair with hope. Most people, even his detractors, admired and respected his integrity. He never thought that he had all the answers or that he was put on Earth to reveal and implement God's plan for the rest of us. Madam Speaker, he has now, and as he noted in the eulogy of the crew of the Challenger shuttle, and I quote, ``slipped the surely bonds of Earth and put out his hand and touched the face of God.'' The days of this week will be remembered for many, many years. Let them be remembered well. Let them be the passing of the torch. A new day is dawning. Leadership, vision, optimism, and faith most of all are needed at every level in our great country and in our homes. Reagan used to say that America's greatest days are ahead of it. Now it can be said so are his.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of February 3, 2004, and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 497) commending the Wake Forest University Demon Deacons field hockey team for winning the 2003 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Field Hockey Championship, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 497.