Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I am happy to see the matter dealt with, with a voice vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I call up amendment No. 3344.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, as Hurricane Sandy was bearing down on our own east coast, causing tremendous damage, a supertyphoon named Bopha was also striking the small Asian Pacific nation of Palau. The U.S. Embassy in Palau issued a declaration on December 5. In response to this emergency, Palau has asked that the assistance agreement signed by the United States in 2010 be approved so the funds already agreed to can become available for disaster recovery. Palau is a strategic ally of ours in the western Pacific near Guam, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Last year, our own Defense Department wrote: Failure to follow through on our commitments to Palau, as reflected in the proposed (Agreement), would jeopardize our defense posture in the Western Pacific. It is important the United States demonstrate its reliability as a strategic partner in the Pacific by approving the 2010 agreement with Palau and meeting our commitments. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague Senator Leahy. Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate now? Is it an amendment to this legislation?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to call up amendment No. 3344 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this is an amendment offered by myself and cosponsored by Senators Webb and Wyden. It would provide for the approval of an agreement between the United States and the Republic of Palau in response to Supertyphoon Bopha. Few people are aware that as Hurricane Sandy was making its landfall in the northeastern part of our country, the United States, a supertyphoon known as Bopha was tracking a path of destruction across the western Pacific. The Republic of Palau, which is one of our closest allies and with which we are tied by a strategic alliance known as the Compact of Free Association, was struck by Bopha on December 2, causing extensive damage. The President of Palau declared a state of emergency, and the U.S. President, acting through the Department of State, issued a disaster declaration for Palau. This massive storm went on to kill over 1,000 people in the Philippines. Fortunately, there were no deaths in Palau, but high winds and storm surge and torrential rains caused widespread damage. A week ago the Ambassador from Palau, the Honorable Hersey Kyota, wrote to me as the chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction for assistance to nations that are in free association with the United States. The Ambassador asked for my help in responding to the disaster, but he did not ask for additional funding. Instead, the Ambassador asked that the agreement on future assistance that was signed between the United States and Palau in 2010 be added to this emergency supplemental so the funding already agreed to by representatives of the United States would become available for disaster relief and recovery in Palau. I fully support the request by the Ambassador. I am glad to have the cosponsorship of my colleagues Senator Webb, who is chairman of the Asia-Pacific subcommittee, and Senator Wyden, who, of course, is the incoming chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I urge my colleagues' support of the amendment. The amendment tracks S. 343, which was introduced by me in February of 2011. At that time it was cosponsored by Senators Murkowski, Akaka, and Webb. The agreement to be approved would revise and update the Compact of Free Association that has governed U.S.-Palau relations since 1994 by extending and phasing out financial assistance over 11 years. Palau is an island nation located strategically between the U.S. territory of Guam, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Captured in World War II, Palau became part of the U.S.-administered Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. In 1994 Palau became a sovereign nation in free association with the United States under a 50-year compact that grants the U.S. military rights that the Department of State calls ``vital to our national security.'' The compact also provided Palau with an initial 15-year term of assistance that ended in 2009. The agreement would extend and phase out U.S. assistance by 2024. Congress has provided stop-gap funding since 2009, but the Department of Defense wrote to our committee--the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources--in April of 2011 stating: Failure to follow through on our commitments to Palau, as reflected in the proposed [agreement], would jeopardize our defense posture in the Western pacific. The agreement provides for the phaseout of financial assistance for operations, construction, and maintenance. The Congressional Budget Office's 10-year budget estimate for direct spending is $171 million. This U.S. commitment to future funding would make a crucial contribution to Palau's efforts to respond and recover from this present disaster. U.S. failure to respond to the needs of this strategic ally in its time of need by simply approving the already signed agreement would signal to Palau and to most other nations in the Pacific that the United States is an unreliable partner. So I urge the support of my colleagues for this amendment and for approving the agreed-to assistance to Palau so they may have the resources needed to respond to Supertyphoon Bopha. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., to hold a briefing entitled, ``Accountability Review Board''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the Right to Vote After the 2012 Election.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 19, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Making Sense of Consumer Credit Reports.''

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in 1981, in his first inaugural address, President Reagan said: Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. I came to the Senate 2 years later in 1983 with the firm belief that in most cases his statement was wrong. I believed then and I believe now that the Federal Government can be a constructive force for good, in protecting and maintaining the civil liberties of all Americans, in maintaining and strengthening our economy, protecting our environment, and in helping Americans live productive and fulfilling lives. As I look back over the last 30 years, many of the arguments that have consumed our time at the Senate, whether on questions of spending or taxes or regulation or fiscal policy, those questions have divided between those who saw government as the problem and those who believed it could and should be a constructive force for helping the American people deal with problems. I consider myself firmly in the second camp. In each of the major areas of national concern, I would like to be able to report progress for the country since I arrived in the Senate. Unfortunately, the record of progress is not so clear. In many areas, we have made progress, but there are also instances where we have lost more ground than we have gained. As issues continue to be reconsidered, I am reminded of the well-known statement that ``success is never permanent in Washington.'' With regard to our Nation's security from foreign aggression, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union were clearly the most positive developments we have seen in the last 30 years. If the end of the Cold War was the most positive national security development I witnessed since coming to the Senate, the invasion of Iraq to bring about regime change in that country was the biggest national security blunder. That blunder cost our Nation dearly in service men and women killed and injured and in resources that should have been used to strengthen our economy here at home. Last month, I was stopped by a woman from northern New Mexico who thanked me for my service in the Senate and particularly for my vote against granting President Bush the authority to take our country into that war. The Nation's fiscal policy is very much the focus of the Senate's attention during these final weeks of the 112th Congress. On this issue, again, we have made one step forward during the time I have been in the Senate, but, unfortunately, we have taken two steps back. I arrived in the Senate in January of 1983, a period of large deficits compared to anything the country had experienced for several decades. Those large deficits grew and persisted through the Reagan Presidency. In 1990, a democratically controlled Congress and President George H.W. Bush made a significant step forward, reining in those deficits with the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of that year, 1990. That law created the statutory pay-go requirement. It also increased marginal rates for the wealthiest Americans, and I was proud to support the measure. In 1993, another major step was taken when, at the urging of President Clinton, Congress enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of that year, 1993. Again, that measure both raised taxes and constrained spending. It was denounced by many in the Senate as sure to throw the economy into recession. In fact, the opposite occurred, and the economy prospered. As a result of these policy changes and the strong economy of the 1990s, we enjoyed a period of balanced budgets and even surpluses in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. Unfortunately, those surpluses were not to continue. President George W. Bush urged Congress to cut taxes and Congress was all too willing to oblige, and although I didn't support the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts, they were passed. At about the same time we were cutting taxes more than we could afford, we were also going to war in Afghanistan and in Iraq and adding a new drug benefit to Medicare. No provision was made to raise revenue or cut spending elsewhere to pay for any of these mammoth undertakings. Of course, the cost of health care, both the cost to government and to families and businesses who purchased private insurance, continued to grow at too rapid a pace. So the result was a return to large deficits and, of course, those large deficits grew substantially larger because of the recession that began in December of 2007. Today, we are trying to strengthen our economy while at the same time trying to reduce projected deficits. That long-term deficit reduction will, once again, require higher taxes as well as new constraints on spending, and I hope that even in these final days of this 112th Congress, we can reach agreement to proceed. As regards health care, in the longstanding fight to provide Americans with access to affordable health care, we have seen significant progress. In 1997, we enacted the Children's Health Insurance Program which resulted in nearly 8 million American children obtaining access to health care. Of course, in 2010, we adopted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This unfairly maligned legislation has the promise of moving us much closer to the goal of universal health care, and I am proud to have worked with my colleagues in the writing of that legislation and in seeing it enacted. Now that the recent election is behind us, I hope the efforts to repeal that legislation are at an end. I also hope the two parties can find ways to improve the legislation with a particular focus on better controlling the growth and the cost of health care. In addressing the various energy challenges facing the country, again, there is progress to report. In 2005 and 2007, Congress enacted major Energy bills. Those bills moved us toward a better and more comprehensive national energy policy. Those bills promoted an adequate and more diverse supply of energy. They increased the efficiency and effectiveness of how we use energy in our economy. They promoted strong market reforms and consumer protections for electricity, and they struck a balance between meeting our energy goals and lessening environmental impacts of energy, including overall greenhouse gas emissions. As a result of that balanced approach, we have arrested what had been an increasing dependence on foreign oil. Coupled with technological advances that have opened new sources of supply, we are headed to greater levels of energy independence than we had thought possible even as recently as 7 years ago. The bipartisan consensus that allowed us to enact those bills has, unfortunately, eluded us in the current Congress. I hope in future Congresses there will reemerge a recognition that climate change is a reality and that our policies to meet our energy needs must also deal responsibly with environmental issues, including the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. As regards our Nation's policy on education, the good news is we seem to have moved past the period where the Republican nominee for President announced a commitment to eliminating the Federal Department of Education. President Clinton deserves great credit for making the support, particularly of higher education, a priority of his Presidency. President George W. Bush deserves credit for making a serious effort to reform and improve elementary and secondary education. Although that effort to improve elementary and secondary education has not succeeded as many of us who supported it had hoped, I remain persuaded the Federal Government needs to persist in trying to play a constructive role in improving education in this country. The States and local school districts deserve great credit for developing and adopting the Common Core Standards, and I hope future Congresses will strongly support the steps and the funding needed to upgrade student performance by implementing those standards. President Obama and his administration have demonstrated their strong commitment to this goal. In addition to these areas of concern I have mentioned, we have seen some progress in maintaining and advancing the science and engineering enterprise in this country. As the Cold War came to an end, we successfully found ways to better integrate the strengths of our defense laboratories into the civilian economy, through technology transfer and partnering. We have also seen some important increases in funding for research, particularly in support of the life sciences, and that growth has stagnated in recent years. It needs to continue and be replenished, but as we continue that support, we must also recognize the need to do more to support research and development in the physical sciences and in engineering. One significant advance I was proud to support was the establishment of ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy within the Department of Energy. That effort to identify breakthrough science and engineering initiatives to meet our energy challenges holds great promise for our Nation and for the entire world. We have also seen progress in providing increased protection for public lands. One particular bill in that area was the omnibus public lands bill that was passed in 2009. It added wilderness protection to over 2 million acres, designated 1,100 miles of wild and scenic rivers, and added more than 2,800 miles for the national trail system. I was proud to be part of the effort to enact that legislation. Finally, I will make a few comments on the way we in the Congress conduct our own business. Any fair assessment has to conclude that in this area, we have lost ground in the last two decades. Public opinion of the performance of Congress is at an alltime low and it is not hard to see why. I will mention three obvious ways in which the functioning of Congress has worsened. First is the willingness of some in Congress to shut down the government. In 1995, we saw the leadership of the House of Representatives demonstrate that they consider refusing to fund the government as an acceptable bargaining ploy in their efforts to prevail in disputes with President Clinton and Democrats on spending issues. Since 1995, that threat to withhold appropriations has been made several more times. As we saw then, shutting down the government is costly, it is wasteful, and it is harmful to Americans. I hope this irresponsible threat will soon be viewed as unacceptable. A second way the malfunctioning of Congress became clear was when in August of 2011--just less than 18 months ago--the Republican leadership in Congress determined that another tool at their disposal was the ability to refuse to increase the debt ceiling. By doing so, they could deny the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to borrow money to meet the obligations the government had already undertaken. To my knowledge, this was the first time the congressional leadership of one of our major parties had stated their willingness to see our Nation default on its debt. This threat to force a default on the obligations of the Federal Government resulted in the sequester of government spending, which is scheduled to begin January 1. It also resulted in a downgrading of U.S. debt by one of the leading credit rating agencies. We now hear renewed threats to use this so-called leverage as a way to demand cuts in Medicare and in Social Security. Once again, I believe this is an irresponsible action I hope Congress will get beyond. Of course, a third way in which the functioning of the Senate--not the full Congress but the Senate--has worsened is the abuse of Senate rules allowing unlimited debate or filibuster. As the Senate currently operates, a threat of filibuster is used routinely to obstruct the Senate from doing its business, even when the issue before the Senate is relatively uncontroversial. Many times following a delay caused by obstruction, an overwhelming number of Senators will vote for the legislation or the nomination which the Senate has been delayed in considering. In the next Congress, I strongly encourage my colleagues to make the necessary changes in Senate rules to limit the ability of one or a few Senators to obstruct the Senate from doing its regular business. My colleague Senator Udall of New Mexico is on the floor with me. He has been a leader in this effort to get these rules changed, and I commend him for that. So the record of our progress both as a country and as a Congress over the last 30 years has been mixed. There is progress to report. I have mentioned some of that. There are also many missteps and failures we need to acknowledge. My conclusion remains that many of our challenges as a nation can only be met with the help of a strong and effective national government. There are times when the actions of the government are more a problem than a solution, but there are many more occasions where enlightened action by the government is important and even essential. I consider it an honor and a privilege to have represented the people of New Mexico in the Senate for the last 30 years. I thank the people of my State for their confidence in electing me and supporting me during the time I have served here. I thank the very capable and committed men and women who have worked on my staff, both in Washington and in New Mexico, during these 30 years. I thank all my colleagues here in the Senate for their friendship and help to me during this period. Of course, I thank my wife Anne and our son John and his wife Marlene for their support that has allowed me to serve in the Senate. To all my friends and colleagues who will be here in the next Congress and in future Congresses, I hope you can find the common ground necessary for our country to effectively move forward and meet its challenges. The endeavor is a worthy one, and I wish you every success. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague, Senator Udall, for his overly generous comments and indicate that 30 or 40 years from now when he retires from the Senate, I will be glad to make similar comments about his service. I could make similar comments about his service already based on the time he has served our State as attorney general and in the Congress and now in the Senate, but he does a tremendous job for New Mexico and for the entire country here, and it is an honor for me to get to serve with him. This will be 4 years that we will have completed as the two Senators from New Mexico, and it has been a great pleasure for me to have a good friend and a very capable Senator to work with. So I again appreciate the overly generous comments. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to first, of course, commend the Senator from Virginia for his great leadership here in the Senate on a whole range of issues. He has served with great distinction here, and it has been an honor for me to serve with him. So I congratulate him on the various issues he discussed and the various issues he has worked on. I have had the good fortune to work and support his efforts on many of those issues.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about what needs to be done before we leave town, before we shut down this session of the Congress. In my view, Congress needs to do five things before the end of the year to head off difficulties for our economy. First, as many have said, the House needs to take up and pass the middle-class tax cut--a bill that was already passed here in the Senate. That is the first item. That has been given a lot of attention. Second, both Houses of Congress need to head off most if not all of the scheduled sequester. I hope we are able to do that. Third, Congress should pass the tax extenders bill that was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee this summer, and that is going to be the subject of most of my comments this morning. Fourth, the Congress should repeal the SGR. This is the law that governs the rates of reimbursement to providers under the Medicare Program. Unless we repeal that law, we will have to once again patch the law, as we have done for many years now, with a so-called Medicare doc fix. I think the time has come to go ahead and repeal the law. The fifth item I want to mention is that Congress needs to give the President the power to raise the debt ceiling. At the same time, Congress should retain Congress's right to disapprove of that increase. But Secretary Geithner has made a proposal to the Congress that I believe makes good sense. It is based upon the arrangement that was agreed to that Senator McConnell had put forward in the 2011 debt ceiling crisis that we all lived through. Obviously, this is a significant to-do list. I do not intend to speak about all of these items. I would like to focus my remarks on the need for Congress to pass the extenders package of tax provisions. I think this has gotten too little attention. It deserves to be dealt with as a major component of the response to the so-called fiscal cliff. This is, in fact, the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012. While I hope the negotiations to avert the fiscal cliff are successful, in my view, we should not wait for a grand bargain in order to finish our work on this important tax extender legislation. Tax extenders are different from the other fiscal cliff issues for three basic reasons. Let me describe those reasons. First, tax extenders are much less contentious than the other end-of- year problems that need to be resolved. The tax extender bill on the Senate calendar has strong bipartisan support. In August the Finance Committee approved it by a large margin. We had support from six Republicans, including the ranking member, Senator Hatch. All 13 Democrats supported it. I believe many more Republicans will vote for this legislation if it is brought up for consideration here in the Senate. The bill consists entirely of tax cuts. It should not be difficult to get Senators to vote for tax cuts, right before Christmases especially. Most of these tax cuts have solid bipartisan support. Many of these tax cuts will help the economy and will help the middle class. For example, the bill includes the deduction for tuition expenses, which is a $4.2 billion tax cut for college students and their families. It includes the deduction for State and local sales taxes. This is a $4.4 billion tax cut, mainly for people who live in States that do not have an income tax, States such as Alaska and Florida and Nevada and Tennessee and Texas and South Dakota and Washington and Wyoming. It includes an increase in the section 179 expensing limits. This is a $2.4 billion tax cut for small businesses. And it includes an extension of the production tax credit for wind energy. This is a tax credit which has bipartisan support. It has helped create thousands of jobs. The production tax credit for wind energy is a vital component of our Nation's energy policy. Its extension is crucial to taking advantage of our domestic energy resources and fostering a vibrant and globally competitive industry. In just the several short years the wind industry has enjoyed this production tax credit, wind installations have grown immensely and manufacturing facilities have grown to where today we have over 400 of these manufacturing facilities that have sprung up around the country. The United States now has over 50,000 megawatts of wind capacity and the wind resources to grow that industry substantially more. My home State of New Mexico has the 10th best wind resources in the country, and has built close to 800 megawatts of capacity. While traditional fossil fuel plants use significant amounts of water to generate electricity, wind facilities use almost none--meaning that by promoting the development of wind power, we can conserve even more of that precious resource. The production tax credit for wind is set to expire in 3 weeks, as these other provisions are as well. With it, tens of thousands of jobs will be lost. In fact, most wind-related companies have already begun to lay off employees. Orders for new turbines and gearboxes have fallen off significantly, and new wind installations are expected to decline dramatically in 2013 unless Congress takes action. Uncertainty comes from many places for those who are in the business world. Congress should not continue to add to that uncertainty. Instead, we should extend the production tax credit for wind and extend the other expiring provisions passed by the Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. A second reason the tax extenders are different from other issues related to the fiscal cliff is that we have a tax extenders bill that has already been voted on in committee. By contrast, none of us know how the disagreements about the Bush tax cuts or sequestration will be resolved. Those negotiations are yet to conclude. But the tax extenders bill has already been negotiated in the Finance Committee. The committee agreed to omit provisions costing billions of dollars. It modified other provisions to make them work better or to scale back on them. The Finance Committee approved this bill by a vote of 19 to 5. That level of support means the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act, or something close to it, is the tax extender bill the Senate is likely to pass this year. Six Republicans voted for it in committee. We would need just one more Republican vote to overcome a filibuster. Some Senators believe tax extenders should only be approved as part of a plan to do comprehensive tax reform. I would agree that each tax extender and each tax expenditure should be examined again during comprehensive tax reform. Each should be made permanent or phased out based on that review. But realistically, the Congress will not make those decisions before the end of this year. Tax reform will take the better part of a year to accomplish or perhaps even longer. We will need to pass an extenders bill before then, and we have one before us today that is worthy of being passed. A third reason we should pass the tax extenders package now and not wait until the eleventh hour is that waiting could force the IRS to delay the tax filing season by 10 weeks or more for millions of Americans. In fact, we are at the eleventh hour. I should amend my comments to make that point very clear. This need for the IRS to delay the tax filing season is because the bill extends many provisions that expired at the end of 2011. They need to be extended for 2012 before people file their tax returns beginning in January of 2013. After Congress acts--if it acts--the IRS needs weeks to finalize tax forms and instruction books and to program computers to process the returns. The IRS tells us that the alternative minimum tax, which is part of this tax extender package, would cause the biggest delay in the filing of new returns because of the number of tax credits and deductions that interact with the alternative minimum tax. In 2010, when Congress waited until December to patch the alternative minimum tax, 10 million taxpayers had to delay their filings the next year. In 2007, after another eleventh-hour patch, 13 million taxpayers were delayed. Both the patches in 2007 and 2010 were enacted in December. So if we do not patch the AMT--alternative minimum tax--until January, the consequences will be even more severe. At some point, IRS would have to choose between two options. Its first option is to postpone the filing season for anyone who could be subject to the AMT and hope that Congress enacts a patch. Between 30 million and 60 million people would have to wait to learn how much tax they owe or whether they will get a refund. The second option is for IRS to proceed with the filing season without the AMT patch. This option is even worse. It would mean 28 million more taxpayers would be subject to the AMT, and they would have to pay $98 billion more in tax for 2012. These are middle-class Americans. Without the patch, the AMT will apply to individuals who earn more than $33,750 in 2012 and couples who earn more than $45,000. Without the patch, 46 percent of couples filing joint returns would owe alternative minimum tax, instead of six percent if we enact the patch. This would be a disaster for the middle class. This is the risk we are taking if we delay passing tax extenders. I urge my colleagues to take up and pass this important legislation, send it to the House so they can do the same, and send it to the President before this Congress finishes its work.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate voted to grant permanent normal trade relations to Russia by a vote of 92 to 4, and I strongly supported that bill. To extend PNTR to Russia, we had to repeal an out-of-date policy that was adopted during the Cold War; that is, the Jackson-Vanik amendment. I wish to speak briefly on the Senate floor this afternoon about another out-of-date policy of the Cold War that I believe should be ended; that is, the trade embargo on Cuba. I have spoken about this many times in the past. Along with Senator Pell, Senator Dodd, and many others, I argued against the Helms-Burton Act in 1996. For the past 50 years, our country's policy toward Cuba has been essentially stagnant. The core element of our foreign policy--which is the embargo--was authorized in a proclamation signed by President Kennedy on February 3, 1962; that is, 51 years ago. At that time, President Kennedy justified the embargo by citing the `` . . . subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet Communism with which the Government of Cuba is publicly aligned. . . . '' He also stated his willingness to ``. . . take all necessary actions to promote national and hemispheric security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the communist powers.'' It is an understatement to say President Kennedy's rationale is from a different era. The Cold War is over. The ``subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet Communism'' has been turned back. What remains of the Communist powers he was referring to are now our major trading partners. We have now extended permanent normal trade relations to Russia, which was, of course, the principal Communist power to which President Kennedy was referring, and neither Cuba nor those Communist powers pose a threat to national or hemispheric security today. The world has changed. It is long past time that we change our policy toward Cuba. The embargo should have been lifted decades ago. It does not serve our national interest. It does not make our country safer. It does no good for the people of Cuba whom we claim to want to help. They would have better jobs and better lives if they could do business with the United States, which is the biggest economy in the world. The embargo does not help their families in the United States. Until recently, their families in the United States were severely restricted in how often they could visit and how much money they could send back to their relatives. It is ironic that for so long our policy for opposing the repression of freedoms in Cuba has included restricting the freedom of Americans to travel to see their families in that country. As I have said before, I deplore the repression of the Castro brothers' government. The United States should support the efforts of the Cuban people to fight for their basic rights, and they need our help. Earlier this year, Amnesty International issued a damning assessment that said: The Cuban government wages a permanent campaign of harassment and short-term detentions of political opponents to stop them from demanding respect for civil and political rights. The Cuban government should release all political prisoners. The Cuban Government should also release Alan Gross, the American who has been jailed for more than 3 years now for distributing telephones in Cuba. As I understand it, he is in poor health and a humanitarian parole is more than justified. When we hear about the Cuban Government's policies toward people--the repression of their basic freedoms, the persecution of political dissidents--it is understandable to want to punish the government and to weaken it so it collapses. We have to ask ourselves if our goal is to punish the Cuban Government or, instead, to help the Cuban people. Our goal should be to help the Cuban people. Further, we have to ask ourselves whether continuing the embargo will accomplish that goal. In my view, the answer is clearly no. It defies belief and 50 years of historical evidence to think that continuing the embargo will result in the toppling of the Castro regime. That regime has survived 50 years of sanctions. Fidel Castro is 84 years old. Raul Castro is 81 years old. It is much more likely that old age and ill health will end their rule rather than the embargo ending their rule; nor will continuing the embargo into a sixth decade--which is what we are now in danger of doing--result in the release of Alan Gross or political prisoners in Cuba or a sudden shift to democracy. A better approach is to build relationships between the people and businesses in the United States and the people and businesses in Cuba. Interaction is a more powerful driver of change than isolation. We should allow more travel, we should allow more communication, and we should allow more commerce. I wish to be clear that ending the embargo would not mean we agree with the Cuban Government's policies, nor does it mean we must stop advocating for basic freedoms and democracy in that nation. We need to be clear-eyed about the human rights abuses in Cuba. But the United States, as the only remaining superpower in the world, should be able to balance these goals. It is the approach we have taken with China. It is the approach we are taking with our vote today with Russia. I wish to point out that as in Cuba, there are significant concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia. In fact, the legislation we voted on to expand our economic ties with Russia includes sanctions targeted at people who commit human rights violations. Those provisions are, of course, called the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and Accountability Act. They were authored by Senators Cardin, Kyl, McCain, and others. We could take a similar approach with Cuba, expanding economic ties while continuing to put pressure on those responsible for repressing basic rights and basic freedoms. Ultimately, because of the web of sanctions legislation that has been enacted over the years, only Congress has the authority to fully lift the embargo. But until Congress is willing to end that embargo, I hope the President will act. The President has substantial authority to loosen the restrictions on travel and commerce. President Obama has already taken important steps, for example, by removing restrictions on family travel and authorizing licenses for the sale of communications equipment. I urge the President to make maximum use of the authorities he does have to relax sanctions. It should have been done long ago. I hope it can be done soon. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield back all remaining time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jackie Kerby Moore for being named one of the 2012 Distinguished Alumni from New Mexico State University. This is an honor given by the New Mexico State University Alumni Association to individuals who have distinguished themselves and thus bring honor and distinction to NMSU. Moore received an athletic scholarship to play at NMSU and continued on teams after college, winning the Women's Fastpitch National Championship in 1984 with the Arrow Butane Flames from Las Cruces. I have had the honor to work with Moore in her role as the executive director of the Sandia Science & Technology Park since its inception in 1998. This 200+ acre technology community is located adjacent to and affiliated with Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. In her role as executive director, she oversees all aspects of the park-- including the management, marketing, recruiting of tenant companies, and securing of funding for infrastructure improvements. The park now serves as home for 25 companies employing almost 1,500 people, and total investment in the Park exceeds $253 million. Under Moore's leadership, the Sandia Science & Technology Park has received the Technology-Led Economic Development Award from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, Outstanding Partnership Award from the Federal Laboratories Consortium Mid- Continent Region, President's Award from the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, and Roadrunner and Pinon Awards from Quality New Mexico. The park has also been recognized with Public/ Private Partnership Awards from the New Mexico State Land Office, Mid- Region Council of Governments, and the International Economic Development Council. Moore serves as an advocate for New Mexico State University and lends her expertise for the advancement of the Arrowhead Research Park. She is a strong supporter of Arrowhead's Entrepreneurship Center and mentors staff and faculty. She has been an involved alumna by supporting College of Business endeavors and engaging with faculty. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Jackie Kerby Moore and thanking her for her commitment to education and technology. It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge her years of service and much deserved success.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution, along with my colleague Senator Tom Udall, recognizing the centennial anniversary of New Mexico's statehood. For over 100 years, New Mexico, the ``Land of Enchantment,'' has enriched the Nation with its magnificent landscapes, diverse people, and unique culture. New Mexico's road to statehood began in 1850 when the New Mexico Territory was established. Statehood was finally achieved on January 6, 1912 when President William Howard Taft signed the proclamation making New Mexico the 47th State of the Union. New Mexico's history long predates this, though, with the State's earliest inhabitants dating as far back as 11,000 B.C. The State's capitol, Santa Fe, is the oldest capital city in the United States, having been established by the Spanish in 1610. New Mexico's beautiful deserts and mountains have been a magnet for visitors. It is no wonder that our State has inspired artists beginning with our earliest inhabitants. New Mexicans have a proud history of military service, and the State has served as a center for scientific innovation for over half a century through the national laboratories based there. Among New Mexico's agricultural products, its chile crop makes it the ``Chile Capital of the World.'' Given New Mexico's many contributions and accomplishments in its first 100 years as a State, and even before then, I am proud to introduce this resolution recognizing the extraordinary history and heritage of the State, and commending the State and its people on this centennial anniversary.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jona Olsson, fire chief of the Latir Volunteer Fire Department located near Questa, NM. Olsson was recently honored as the 2012 Volunteer Fire Chief of the Year by Fire Chief for her tireless work at the Latir Volunteer Fire Department and her efforts to increase diversity in the local fire service. She was honored on August 3, 2012, during the opening session of the International Association of Fire Chiefs' Fire-Rescue International Conference and Exhibition in Denver, CO. After moving to New Mexico in 1999, Olsson was recruited to join the Latir Volunteer Fire Department. She quickly became integrated in the fire department, rising through the ranks, serving as a training officer, deputy chief, and eventually fire and EMS chief for the department in 2006. Olsson has facilitated training to individual departments and fire conferences across North America, as well as the United Kingdom. During tough economic times, Olsson and other volunteers have continued to expand the fire department, increasing training hours and the number of qualified volunteers. All 18 of Latir's volunteer firefighters are structure trained, 13 are qualified with wildland Red Cards, and nine have EMS licenses. The Latir Volunteer Fire Department also has an active junior firefighter program. In addition, the fire department recently built a new addition to the fire station and purchased another fire engine. I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Jona Olsson and the excellent work of the Latir Volunteer Fire Department. The dedication of Olsson and the community volunteers helps ensure the delivery of vital services to New Mexico residents.