[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 161 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8022-S8024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAREWELL TO THE SENATE
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
[[Page S8023]]
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
[[Page S8024]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
____________________