Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. It never ceases to amaze me the tremendous creativity that exists in the Senate, just by virtue of the name of this act we are discussing today, the Employee Free Choice Act, and to, of course, hear my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, talk about some of the ills that face labor today. Certainly, I want to say that as someone who has worked as a laborer and as someone who has worked with people who have worked in labor, I want to make sure the American people have good wages. I agree with that 100 percent. I think all of us in America want to see people make a good living, to be able to raise their families in a way that certainly is full of respect. I want to see the same things occur. I wish to say this debate today is most unusual. To talk about this vote we are going to have a little later today as being one about ``free choice'' is most ironic. Unlike most people who serve in the Senate, I have actually carried a union card. I have actually paid union dues. I have actually served as a trustee on a pension fund to ensure employees of mine who were union employees were able to receive their pensions down the road. So I worked with labor and I have been a laborer. I have been one of those people who certainly was talked to about organization and about people being members of a union. I wish to say again--to reiterate what the Senator from Wyoming said--it is amazing that all of the ills relating to the labor movement today can be brought back to this one act that we are talking about today that has to do with card check. I know people have talked about Supreme Court rulings and about books and about a lot of things. I wish to talk about what it means to be out on a jobsite and to be talking with union representatives, whether it is on a picket line or on the jobsite itself. If this act were to pass, instead of people having a secret ballot, such as we have in the Senate when we select our leadership, such as people have when they vote for us to be in the Senate--instead of that, what would occur is that each individual would be talked to about whether they would like to see a union come in. I have witnessed this, where people would go up to a water cooler on a construction site, and four or five large people representing the union gather around that person and ask them if they would like to be a member of the union. I have witnessed this when people are living out in rural areas and they don't want to vote for the union, but people pay them a visit in the dark of night suggesting they should check off a card, if you will, so they can call the union to form in the organization they happen to work for. This is not about free choice. Certainly, this is about making sure the union leaders don't have to do the job that is necessary to cause people to want to join their union by offering the membership things they would like to have, but instead they would have the ability to strongarm people and cause people to do things that are not in their own interest. What is amazing to me is that union membership doesn't even want to see this happen. What this, in essence, would do is cause union leadership not to even have to carry out their jobs in a way that would cause people to want to be a member of the union but instead threaten people at the jobsite, at their homes late at night, to cause them to be a member of the union. For that reason, and because of the time we have at this point, I urge all those in the Senate to vote against this piece of legislation, which goes against the very principle we all support, and that is secret ballots, freedom of choice. I vehemently oppose this legislation because I believe this would set our country back a hundred years. I urge my fellow Senators to vote against this act. I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside so I may offer amendment No. 1608.

Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if we are serious about energy security and reducing our dependence on foreign oil and our consumption of gasoline, we have to, through our energy legislation, encourage a variety of fuels and technologies. Current law requires 5.4 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008, and 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The underlying bill on the floor today increases the amount to 8.5 billion gallons in 2008 and 36 billion gallons by the year 2022. The underlying bill focuses on renewable fuels, including ethanol from corn and cellulosic ethanol, and I think that is outstanding. I am so proud the State of Tennessee is going to be playing a very large role in our country meeting those objectives. The amendment I am offering expands the renewable fuel standard by adding a clean fuel definition so any fuel meeting criteria may be a part of the 36 billion gallon mandate. It does not in any way strike or replace the underlying fuels that qualify. To qualify as a clean fuel under this amendment, a fuel must meet the following requirements: not be derived from crude oil, and achieve life cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions that are better than the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of conventional gasoline. In addition, on top of what I just said, it must meet one of the following requirements: achieve a life cycle emission reduction compared with conventional gasoline of two or more criteria pollutants. Those pollutants include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 10 microns; and achieve a life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction of 20 percent compared to conventional gasoline. Under no circumstances per this amendment can a fuel qualify if its greenhouse gas emissions are not less than conventional gasoline and if it is derived from crude oil. In other words, crude oil products do not qualify and the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions have to be less than conventional gasoline. In addition, a clean fuel may participate in the advanced biofuels carve-out beginning in 2016 if it meets the follow requirements: not derived from crude oil, achieves a life cycle emission reduction compared to conventional gasoline of two or more criteria pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 10 microns and, the other hurdle, achieves life cycle greenhouse gas emission reductions of 20 percent compared to conventional gasoline. We have a number of technologies that are being pursued today that could meet the solutions our country needs to pursue. While I am a tremendous fan of much of what is happening right now with ethanol-- again the State of Tennessee playing a big role--we need to allow the entrepreneurs in our country to help us solve this problem of dependence on oil from foreign sources, especially those that are not friendly to our country. For that reason, ethanol should not be our only solution. What we should try to do as a body is not to pick winners and losers. What we should do is set standards and allow the market to meet those standards. We have, again, tremendous initiatives going throughout our country. What we need to do in the Senate is not to define too narrowly what we want to help us be less dependent on foreign oil. If we do that, we will continue to consume more and more gasoline. My amendment is focused on making sure we continue to pursue energy security, that we allow our gross domestic product to grow, and we harness that great entrepreneurialism that exists throughout our country; that we do everything we can to lower greenhouse gas emissions and other criteria pollutants that also create tremendous damage to people throughout our country. I think this amendment does that. I ask my fellow Senators to endorse this particular amendment. I notice at this point, after offering this amendment, there is an absence of a quorum, and I wish to set aside my amendment.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the Domenici amendment. I want to say as I begin my comments I think we are extremely blessed in this Senate to have the two very distinguished Senators from New Mexico, two Senators I respect greatly and have advanced the energy agenda in our country in a very beneficial way. While I speak against the Bingaman amendment, I do so with tremendous respect for his leadership on our committee. I look forward to working with him on many future endeavors. However, today, I must say I am in strong opposition to that amendment. I have just come to the Senate 5 months and 2 weeks ago. One of the things the American people see in the Senate is the tendency to want to create one-size-fits-all programs and not take into account the various differences that exist around our country. That happens in so many programs we put in place here in Washington. People back home do not understand how we can be so shortsighted as to try to put in place one-size-fits-all programs. I think it is admirable that we are moving toward renewables. I am very proud to be focused heavily on that in our Energy Committee and very supportive of the base bill, with some amendments, that is before us today. But this is nothing more than a tax, a tax on Southeast United States, a tax where basically it is a transference of wealth from Southeast America to other parts where wind and solar take place. To me, a much more sensible approach is to say we do want to use clean technologies, as the Domenici amendment does. We want to use clean technologies, but we want to let the market do that. We want to include technologies like nuclear. Many utilities around the country have invested heavily in nuclear. We are finding even better ways to process the unutilized fuel that is left. To me, what we ought to be doing is setting a standard that allows many technologies to be brought into America's energy production so that we are, as the Senator from Washington just mentioned, far less dependent on carbon-emitting fuels, far less dependent on natural gas, which is compromising our ability to compete in other areas, in other industries, because of the high price of natural gas. I rise today, even though Tennessee is playing a role in wind and solar. We have 500 employees in Memphis, TN, who are making solar technology. I applaud the efforts to promote that technology in America. But I rise to say the Bingaman amendment is a very shortsighted amendment that does create a one-size-fits-all policy that does not take into account the various geographical differences that exist in our country. The Domenici amendment tries to rectify that. I speak today in strong support of that amendment and hope that others in the Senate will realize what we are doing and, hopefully, they will embrace a standard that moves our country ahead while taking into account the various geographic differences that exist. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of America's energy security, and I wish to speak a moment about the bill that is before us and talk about some of the pluses it brings into our debate and also talk about some additions I think are very necessary. I am very excited that the Energy Committee, which I am on, has passed out to this body a bill that talks about increasing the ability of our country to rely upon alternative fuels. I think we have set some very good goals in that area. I believe that is an excellent start to cause us to be less dependent on petroleum, to be far more dependent on biofuels in our country. I know the State of Tennessee, which I proudly represent, will be a big part of making sure that happens. As a matter of fact, our State is working to make sure we are a substantial part of our country's goal in meeting these objectives. I know cellulosic research is taking place in Tennessee and throughout the country, which will benefit all Americans in the process, as we take the pressure off corn-based ethanol, which is a big part of what we are doing in our country. I am so thrilled for the corn farmers and others across America who are playing a part in our energy future, but I know that cellulosic is going to be a big part of what we need to do to even increase our country's ability to produce alternative fuels. I also know this bill we are contemplating does a great deal to focus on carbon capture and storage. It also allows our country to actually assess the various caverns throughout our country to really look at how much storage capacity our country has as it relates to storing CO2 emissions in order to make sure we do no further damage to our environment. I know this bill also really focuses on energy efficiency standards-- something all Americans need to embrace. Certainly, the Federal Government needs to be a leader in that area, and this bill certainly contemplates that. But let me say this: In a rush to do this--and I am, again, thrilled we have a bipartisan effort underway--I think we need not lose sight of the fact that overall our goal should be to certainly make sure whatever we do with energy policy raises the gross domestic product of our country over time, so these young people who are here as pages today have a future that is even brighter than it is today, that what we do certainly causes our country to have energy security so we are not dependent on regimes around the world that are not friendly to our country, and that whatever we do causes us to be environmental stewards, that we do not damage our country. I want to tell you that I had the great privilege of spending time in Europe 2 weeks ago, looking at some of the energy policies some of our friends and allies have put in place. While on one hand I admire greatly their effort to do less damage to the environment, sometimes there are adverse consequences to what occurs. I think what we have seen over the short term is a greater dependence on fuel sources that will cause them to be in some ways more dependent on regimes that could not in some ways be friendly to their future. I think we need to keep these things in balance. So while we look at alternative fuels that are going to be friendly to our environment and cause us to be less dependent on those that are not, I think we ought to also focus heavily, in this bill, on increased production. Here in America, we need to do our best to boost fuel supply by increased production. We need to increase our refining capacity. We really have not had major increases in refining capacity in this country since the 1970s. There are additions that are taking place. I know many people are talking about the high price of gasoline. Certainly, one of the reasons for that is our country has a limited ability to actually refine petroleum in a way we can use it in our vehicles. That is something we as a country need to aggressively pursue. The other thing we need to do in this bill--and I plan to offer an amendment to deal with this issue. In some ways, in this bill, in focusing on alternative fuels, we are trying to pick winners and losers. We are saying certain types of ethanol are the types of alternative fuels we need to be pursuing and those only. What I would like to do is add--and what I will do through an amendment, and hopefully, it will pass this body--is to cause the Senate to actually set standards, standards that cause fuels to be environmentally friendly, to emit less carbon, to emit less other types of pollutants, and at the same time be fuel efficient, to provide the amount of energy, if you will, that really meets the standards these other fuels do. So we hope to broaden that definition so the Senate itself is not defining specific fuels. We have tremendous capabilities in our country through entrepreneurship. We have tremendous capabilities through coal-to- liquid technology that we can do in an environmentally friendly way. We have other types of technologies that are being developed. I think we as a country should set goals and standards and let entrepreneurs and the business community help fill the void to cause our country to be energy secure, to cause our country to help grow the GDP, and to cause our country to make sure what we do causes us to be environmentally friendly. So we will be putting forth that amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping us broaden these definitions so we can harness the very best we have in our country. I yield my time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today to, first of all, thank our leadership for allowing a true debate to take place on this issue. I know at one time it was discussed that we would pass this huge piece of legislation, that affects so many people, in 3 days. Because of the acquiescence of the bill managers and leadership, we are truly going to have 3 weeks of debate. You heard the Senator from Texas offer an amendment to make this legislation better; and the Senator from North Dakota, to offer his views. I think this whole process has been very healthy. One of the things we are trying to address in this bill is a situation where our immigration has been broken, the system has been broken for many years. In 1986, legislation was offered to try to solve this problem. What has happened is it has gotten even worse, so there has been, obviously, more thought put into this bill. I appreciate again the many amendments and the discussion that has taken place. Many of the things we have talked about have addressed the legalities, have addressed some of the technicalities in our immigration system. It seems to me, one of the things we have not addressed--while we have tried to address fairness to businesses, we tried to address fairness to immigrants, we tried to address fairness to families--one of the things I think we have not addressed is a sense of fairness to the American citizen. What I mean by that is this. There is a sense of fairness that we see many times on the floor that is not addressed by the fact that we have about 12 million people in this country today illegally. People see this bill as straight amnesty, where all of a sudden we are going to make it legal that if you have been here working, for however long, you become legal in this country by virtue of being here. In many cases, people have talked about some of the draconian measures that require people to actually return home to their countries. Yet this bill, in some cases, does that. Certainly, to become a green card holder, somebody has to return home to their country before coming in. That is something Americans think is fair. If you want to be a temporary worker in this country, according to this bill, what you would do is work here for 2 years, as the Senator from North Dakota responded, then you would leave and go back for a year, and then you would come back into our country. Yet that is not perceived to be draconian and I do not think it is at all. But the one provision that seems to me to hit at the essence of the American frustration that is not in this bill, is the fact that we have some triggers that are going to cause our borders to be secure and make us be able to track people in an appropriate way--the administration said this can take place over the next 18 months--but what we are not doing is asking the people who are here in our country illegally to actually return home and come back through legal channels. It is that point, I think, that has divided the American people, the fact that this bill does not address the inequity of allowing those people to remain here. These are people who came here, obviously, to support their families, and we understand what the motivation is for many people to be here, but this bill does not address that inequity. What I propose tonight and I am working with other Senators to hopefully make happen after we come back from recess, is to actually have a provision in this bill that treats people who are here illegally like those who wish to have a green card, like those who would be temporary workers in this bill. I would ask that other Senators work with me and others to create an amendment to this bill that actually would cause, over a reasonable amount of time, people who are working in this country to return to their home country and then come back through legal channels. I think that strikes at the very core of what so many Americans believe is so inappropriate about having illegal immigrants, illegal workers, automatically made legal. I think that is a central fallacy in this bill as it has been offered today. After many of these technical amendments are agreed to over the course of the next few days, and as we come back from recess, I look forward to working with other Senators to try to ensure that if this immigration bill passes, it passes in a way that meets the sense of fairness the American public believes this bill ought to have; that it addresses that inequity of people who jumped in front of the line and came here, being here illegally and yet being able to benefit without, during a reasonable period of time, returning home and coming back through legal channels, once we have the mechanisms in place to allow people to do that. I hope to have the opportunity to work with others in this body to make that happen. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank my neighbor from the great State of Alabama, and I rise today to express concerns over the speed at which this legislation is being addressed this week. I thank the many Senators and all the staff members who have worked for weeks and months to put forward this piece of legislation--a piece of legislation we received at 1:58 on Saturday morning. This is a condensed form. In its bigger form, it could be three times this size. This evening, at 6 o'clock, I will be meeting with other Senators to walk through this legislation to see its impact on the citizens of this country, to see its impact on neighborhoods, on public hospitals, on schools, on counties, on judicial systems, on sheriffs, on businesses, and on people throughout this country. Many of the pieces of legislation we deal with in this body relate to tax reform or they are pieces of legislation that may deal with a program. I don't know of any piece of legislation that touches as many people in as many ways as does this piece of legislation. So I rise today to encourage my fellow Senators to take a break, to give us the opportunity to actually digest this legislation. Again thanking the Senators who spent so much time in giving us this piece of work here for us now to debate, I rise today to encourage my fellow Senators not to rush into this debate, to give us the time to actually look through the intricacies of this bill and see how it affects everyone involved. This is one of the most major pieces of legislation we will deal with in this Congress. My attempt today is in no way to stonewall, in no way to not deal with an issue that is important to our country, but instead to make sure we, the ``greatest deliberative body in the world,'' actually deliberate, that we actually look at this bill in detail, that we actually take our responsibilities seriously. I have great concerns over the content of this legislation. My guess is that many of the people involved in drafting this legislation have great concerns over this legislation. We all should take the time this week to go through and look at what this legislation actually says and to hear from groups that are actually affected seriously by this piece of legislation. Perhaps we should take our normal recess, or work through it if we need to, but come back and then, as the ``greatest deliberative body in the world,'' actually deliberate and debate this legislation. Again, I have great concerns, and I am rising here in the Senate to ask other Senators to join me in urging caution, to make sure we put forth a piece of legislation that truly reflects the values of this country and addresses this immigration issue in the way it ought to be addressed. Mr. President, I yield to the great Senator from the State of Alabama.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I will probably take more like 5 minutes, if the Senator from Georgia wants to allocate the time elsewhere. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As you can tell by my location in the Senate, I am new to the Senate. I spent a great deal of time, as many people did, over the course of the last 2 years visiting with citizens in our State. I think there is nothing that touches us in the public arena more than seeing people who have needs and trying to address those needs. That is the reason many of us are in the public arena--I hope all of us are in the public arena. Few of us are untouched by the many illnesses that plague Americans. I know all of us have people who have diseases, such as diabetes, various forms of cancers, heart disease, Alzheimer's. I know my own family has been touched by Alzheimer's disease. My father has it. All of us are aware of issues that are affecting human beings. We also want to see breakthroughs take place. It is amazing, the breakthroughs that are taking place today with stem cell research--research from adult stem cells, research that is taking place from matter from amniotic fluids, research that is taking place from cord blood matter. So there are amazing cures taking place in America today with this research, and I doubt there is a Senator in this body--not a Senator in this body--who doesn't support stem cell research. The issue really comes down to embryonic stem cell research. Mr. President, I want you to know that over the course of the last 2 years, I spent a tremendous amount of time looking into this issue, reading white papers, talking to researchers all across America, visiting embryonic adoption centers where embryos were actually being adopted and creating human beings. Because of this issue, because of the ethical divide this issue seems to create for so many Americans, a tremendous amount of time was put forth by myself and my staff, but myself firsthand, to reach a conclusion about this issue and to be able to communicate that to Tennesseans and Americans. There are four points I have learned about this issue. The Senator from Massachusetts just spoke. He and I have a very different view on this issue. What I have learned about this issue is that honorable people can disagree. Honorable people who truly want to see cures take place for Americans and for people all across the world can disagree as to their viewpoint as it relates to embryonic stem cell research. Again, all of us support adult stem cell research. The second point I have learned is that there are tremendous breakthroughs, as I have already mentioned, regarding research that is taking place with adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, and amniotic fluids have matter that is creating stem cells. Tremendous cures are being created with these stem cells. The third point is that science is going to absolutely outpace our ability to deal with this issue. There is no question that even if we pass legislation today, science is going to continue to outpace us as it relates to our ability to deal with this fascinating area of science. But I also believe science and these breakthroughs are going to allow us to continue to achieve these cures for Americans and for people all across this world without creating this ethical divide of destroying human embryos. So I am here to strongly support and applaud the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Minnesota who have put forth the HOPE Act. I am here to strongly support S. 30, which allows additional research to take place on stem cells without breaking that divide. I am also here to voice opposition to S. 5, which actually uses Federal dollars to destroy human embryos. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor a bill to rename the Memphis Federal Building in order to commemorate a great Tennessean, the Honorable Odell Horton. Judge Horton, born in Bolivar, TN, on May 13, 1929, was the son of a laborer and a laundress. After high school he performed two tours as a U.S. marine, including service in the Korean war. He was a graduate of Morehouse College, the United States Navy School of Journalism, and Howard University School of Law. Horton's distinguished legal career began in 1956 in a one room office at 145 Beale Street, where he remained in private practice for 6 years. In 1962 he began service as an assistant U.S. attorney in Memphis. He remained in this position until he was appointed to the Shelby County Criminal Court, where he was later elected without opposition. Judge Horton also served in the capacity as the city of Memphis' director of Hospital and Health Services, where he ordered the desegregation of the Bowld Hospital in 1968. In 1970, Judge Horton left public service to serve as the President of LeMoyne-Owen College, a historically African-American liberal arts college. In 1976, he began service as a U.S. bankruptcy judge until 1980 when he became the first African-American since Reconstruction to be appointed to a Tennessee Federal judicial appointment. He was a well regarded and respected judge who served as the chief judge for the Western District from 1987 through 1993. On May 16, 1995, Judge Horton took senior status and 2 years later closed his office. He and his wife Evie were married for over 50 years and had two sons, Odell, Jr. and Christopher. Unfortunately, Judge Horton left us on February 22, 2006. His colleagues remember him as a thorough, patient judge who brought a pleasant demeanor to the bench. Judge Horton was a man who admirably served his country and State. He was a great Tennessean and it is my honor today to cosponsor a bill to memorialize his contribution to our country and the State of Tennessee.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor a bill to rename the Memphis Federal Building in order to commemorate a great Tennessean, the Honorable Odell Horton. Judge Horton, born in Bolivar, TN, on May 13, 1929, was the son of a laborer and a laundress. After high school he performed two tours as a U.S. marine, including service in the Korean war. He was a graduate of Morehouse College, the United States Navy School of Journalism, and Howard University School of Law. Horton's distinguished legal career began in 1956 in a one room office at 145 Beale Street, where he remained in private practice for 6 years. In 1962 he began service as an assistant U.S. attorney in Memphis. He remained in this position until he was appointed to the Shelby County Criminal Court, where he was later elected without opposition. Judge Horton also served in the capacity as the city of Memphis' director of Hospital and Health Services, where he ordered the desegregation of the Bowld Hospital in 1968. In 1970, Judge Horton left public service to serve as the President of LeMoyne-Owen College, a historically African-American liberal arts college. In 1976, he began service as a U.S. bankruptcy judge until 1980 when he became the first African-American since Reconstruction to be appointed to a Tennessee Federal judicial appointment. He was a well regarded and respected judge who served as the chief judge for the Western District from 1987 through 1993. On May 16, 1995, Judge Horton took senior status and 2 years later closed his office. He and his wife Evie were married for over 50 years and had two sons, Odell, Jr. and Christopher. Unfortunately, Judge Horton left us on February 22, 2006. His colleagues remember him as a thorough, patient judge who brought a pleasant demeanor to the bench. Judge Horton was a man who admirably served his country and State. He was a great Tennessean and it is my honor today to cosponsor a bill to memorialize his contribution to our country and the State of Tennessee.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am thankful for this opportunity. It is quite an honor, something from which many Americans can draw a great deal of wisdom. I will begin this great Farewell Address that has been our custom now for many years. Mr. CORKER, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows: 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. CORKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.