[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 3075-3077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HISTORY OF WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS

  Mr. KING. Mr. President, it was a great privilege for me a few 
moments ago to read George Washington's Farewell Address for a number 
of reasons; one, we learned in doing a little research on this 
practice--which as the majority leader indicated goes back more than 
100 years--that the last Senator from Maine to read President 
Washington's Farewell Address was Senator Ed Muskie, who read it on 
this floor exactly 50 years ago. The last Senator to read before him 
from Maine was a freshman Senator in 1949, one Margaret Chase Smith. So 
if you believe that I am honored and humbled to be following in those 
footsteps, you would be correct. This is one of the seminal documents 
in American history. It really ranks with the Federalist Papers, the 
Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution itself. As the 
majority leader indicated, it didn't simply spring from Washington's 
mind. It actually has an interesting history. It was originally drafted 
in 1792, at the end of Washington's first term, when he intended to 
retire. He kept wanting to retire all the way from the end of the 
Revolutionary War, and the public kept calling him back into service.
  The first speech in 1792 was drafted by James Madison, who was the 
father of our Constitution. Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson convinced 
Washington that he couldn't leave at the end of his first term because 
there was too much going on in the country. The country was still in 
its very formative years, and patriotism required him to stay for a 
second term, which he reluctantly did.
  This speech was delivered in September of 1796--at the end of 
Washington's second term--and was based upon the original Madison 
draft, edited and updated by Alexander Hamilton. I don't know about 
others, but I wouldn't mind having Madison and Hamilton be my 
ghostwriters--two of the greatest minds in American history and minds 
which didn't always agree about all the principles of what the country 
should work toward, but they agreed to work with Washington on this 
remarkable address.
  I would like to take a moment to talk about Washington's importance. 
I used to teach about leadership, and one of the fundamental principles 
I used to pound into my students was that execution is as important as 
vision--that having a good idea and a concept is not enough; it has to 
be executed well in order to take root and actually achieve the 
benefits that are intended.
  Washington was the execution of the vision of the Constitution. When 
he took office, there was no United States. There was an idea, there 
was a vision, there was a concept, but how it was actually put into 
practice was so much in the consequences of Washington's decisions on a 
day-to-day basis, starting with only running for two terms, starting 
with when they asked him what the President should be called--and, of 
course, in Europe it was ``Your Excellency'' and all these fancy 
titles--and he said: ``Mr. President'' is the proper appellation for an 
executive in a republican form of government. But Washington was 
essential to the success of this country because of his role as the 
person who did the executing of the vision embodied in the

[[Page 3076]]

Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
  The speech itself is amazing. In many parts, it could have been 
written last week. Several things come through to me very quickly.
  One is his wonderful, inspiring, powerful, passionate commitment to 
public service. He talked about his humbleness, his patriotism, his 
feeling of duty in order to serve his country. Next, he is passionate 
about national unity, and indeed his comments foreshadow the Civil War. 
He talked about regional differences and the importance of unity not 
only to the country as a whole but as benefits to the regions 
themselves. He talks about the North and South and the East and the 
Atlantic. He is presaging the arguments of the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s 
that led to the attempted dissolutions of the country and passionately 
argued for the importance and significance not only as an abstract 
principle but in a very material, concrete interest, how important 
union was.
  Of course, as one of the two Independents in this body, it would be 
unbecoming for me to dwell at too great length on his imprecations 
about the dangers of party to our society. I will let those speak for 
themselves. But he was very worried about what he called factions and 
later on in the address actually refers to them as ``parties.''
  He also talks about the dangers of concentration of power and the 
usurpation of power by one branch or another of the government--again, 
a fundamental principle and a realization of the important role the 
Constitution played in dividing powers between what he calls the 
segments of the government.
  I think one of the aspects that comes through in this document, as it 
comes through in the Federalist Papers--which is the other sort of 
seminal explanation of how our government came to be and what the 
thinking is--is a brilliant in-depth understanding of human nature. He 
is talking to the ages in this speech. He is not talking to the 
politics of 1796 or the politics of 1800s or the politics of the 
Revolutionary War; he is talking about human nature and the tendency 
toward despotism, the tendency toward usurpation, the tendency toward 
power being accumulated in one place, and that comes through. Often he 
talks about human nature. I think that was one of the most important 
and most salient characteristics of all of the founding individuals of 
this country.
  There is a very interesting provision on religion expressly stating 
that religion is part of our heritage and that morality is part of our 
heritage. He has an interesting image: How can an oath mean anything if 
religion doesn't mean anything?
  Finally, there is a short but powerful passage about the importance 
of education. He calls it the ``general diffusion of knowledge.'' That 
is public education. The general diffusion of knowledge means everyone, 
not just the elite. That is one of the secrets of America, the general 
diffusion of knowledge.
  Of course, one that speaks to us today is his admonition to cherish 
the public credit and not get into debt, and if you get into debt 
because of a war, endeavor during peacetime to pay off the debt. I 
think that is something we really need to take to heart and think 
about, lest our debt swamp us in the future. He uses a phrase I 
couldn't help but emphasize when I read the speech: that we should not 
ungenerously throw upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought 
to bear. In other words, we ought to pay our own bill, and right now in 
this country we are not doing that.
  He also has a sort of amusing passage about taxes, saying: Nobody 
likes taxes. They are never fun. They are always inconvenient. But they 
are necessary. And he talks about how the members of the government 
have to prepare the public for the idea that they have to pay for those 
expenditures that are going to be entailed in the pursuit of any 
governmental enterprise.
  Finally, he talks about foreign entanglements, probably the most 
famous portion of the speech, where he talks about being neutral, the 
luxury we have being protected by huge oceans, and that we really 
should avoid foreign entanglements.
  Interestingly, on that provision I went back and read the comments. 
Each time a Senator reads the speech, there is a leather-bound book in 
which they put their notes, which I am going to be doing in a few 
minutes. I went back and read the notes of Ed Muskie and Margaret Chase 
Smith. In 1949 Margaret Chase Smith wrote in her note: I wonder if we 
should be entering into NATO. This was indeed the first major foreign 
commitment of American enterprise after Washington's speech. Margaret 
Chase Smith obviously had second thoughts after she had read the speech 
here on the Senate floor in 1949.
  Finally, this speech is so powerful because it is so fresh and it 
speaks to us today. My favorite quote from Mark Twain--and there are 
many, but one which I suspect I will repeat on this floor at least half 
a dozen times during my tenure here: History doesn't always repeat 
itself, but it usually rhymes. In this case, what Washington was 
telling us in the fall of 1796 rhymes. It helps us to think through so 
many of the issues which are confronting us here today and the wisdom 
of Washington expressing it. Remember, two of the most brilliant minds 
of that period--Hamilton and Madison--participated in the drafting of 
the speech--words well worth remembering, a wonderful contribution to 
the life of our country.
  I thank the majority leader and the leadership for giving me the 
privilege and the honor to read the speech today on behalf of my 
colleagues.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                           Energy Regulation

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I spent the morning over at the Supreme 
Court. I was there to support the plaintiffs in a very important case 
against overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency. And here is 
why I say this case is important--not only for Kentucky but for the 
entire country.
  First of all, it involves the all-important question of whether 
elections actually still matter in our country. I say that because 4 
years ago President Obama tried to push far-reaching energy-regulating 
legislation through a Congress which was at the time completely 
dominated by his own party. He had a 40-seat majority in the House and 
he had 60 votes in the Senate. The cap-and-trade bill passed the House 
but did not pass the Senate. Even with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a 
Democratic majority leader in the Senate, he just couldn't get the 
votes to enact the cap-and-trade bill. A Democrat-controlled Congress 
beat back the President's plan to radically upend energy regulation in 
our country. They stopped the national energy tax.
  Just a few months later the American people rendered a harsh verdict 
on the Obama agenda in an election wipeout which the President himself 
referred to as a ``shellacking.'' Others have described the November 
2010 midterm elections as a national restraining order.
  My point is that this should have been the end of the story on the 
President's energy regulation plan. Instead, it was just the beginning.
  The President's base wasn't about to back off from divisive policies 
just because they couldn't achieve them legislatively. So the far-left 
fringe pressured the White House to push similar regulations through 
the back door, to achieve through Presidential fiat what they could not 
achieve through legislation. That, of course, is what the Obama 
administration has done. The administration has attempted to use 
statutes such as the Clean Air Act to regulate what those laws were 
never intended to regulate and don't even mention.
  The administration itself effectively acknowledges that if it 
actually followed the plain language of the Clean Air Act in regulating 
carbon emissions, that would lead to ``absurd results.'' The 
administration itself said that if they actually followed the plain 
language of the Clean Air Act in regulating carbon emissions, it would 
lead to ``absurd results.''

[[Page 3077]]

  So here is what the Obama administration decided to do about the 
absurdity: just unilaterally rewrite parts of the law it didn't like, 
on its own, without the input of Congress--the branch of government 
that is supposed to write our laws. This kind of Presidential overreach 
should concern every Member of this body, regardless of party. From a 
constitutional perspective, this is a wholly troubling practice which 
needs to be rectified by the High Court.
  But this case is about more than just constitutional theory; it is 
also about people's lives. Regardless of their constitutionality, the 
energy regulations imposed by this administration are simply bad 
policy. Coupled with cheaper natural gas, the administration's 
regulations have helped foster hardship in many of America's coal 
communities--hardship which has ruined lives and has hurt some of the 
most vulnerable people in our country.
  In Kentucky these regulations have helped devastate families who 
haven't done anything wrong--other than to be on the wrong side of a 
certain set of liberals who don't seem to approve of the hard work they 
do to support their families.
  When President Obama took office, there were more than 18,000 coal 
jobs in Kentucky. At last count that figure has dropped to less than 
12,000--with eastern Kentucky coal employment dropping by 23.4 percent 
this last year alone.
  Let's be clear. These regulations are unfair, and they represent the 
conquest of liberal elites imposing their political will on working-
class Kentuckians who just want to feed their families. That is why I 
have filed an amicus brief in the case I was referring to. It is on 
behalf of the Kentuckians who are voiceless in this debate, the 
families that find themselves on the losing end of a ``war'' that has 
been declared on them by their own government.
  I held a listening session on these EPA regulations with coal miners 
in December, and many of their stories were heartbreaking. Listen to 
what Howard Abshire of Fedscreek had to say:

       I say to you, Mister President of the United States . . . 
     We're hurting. You say you're the president of the people? 
     Well, we're people too. No one loves the mountains . . . more 
     than we do. We live here. We crawl between them. We get up 
     every morning and we go on top of a mountain in a strip job 
     in the cold rain, snow, to put bread on the table . . . Come 
     and look at our little children, look at our people, Mr. 
     President. You're not hurting for a job; you've got one. I 
     don't have one.

  I hope the President is listening.
  As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it now has the opportunity 
to end this latest abuse of the Constitution by the Obama 
administration. I hope the justices will make the right decision in 
this case. Either way, I am going to keep fighting. I have already 
filed a proposal that would allow Congress to have a say in the 
administration's job-killing regulations.
  It is time for Washington elites to think about ways to help, instead 
of hurt, the hard-working people of eastern and western Kentucky.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2037 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. It would appear we do 
not have a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________