Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I'm pleased to be joined by Senator Murray in introducing the ``National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 1999''. This bill will make it easier for our national labs to collaborate and build strong technical relationships with other technical organizations, particularly universities and companies right near the labs. That will yield two major benefits. It will improve the labs' ability to do their missions, and it will promote high tech economic growth around the labs, thus, helping the labs as it helps the labs' communities. Many of you know that making it easier to work with our national labs is a cause I've pursued for many years. And we've made solid progress. The labs are now involved in an array of technical collaborations, usually under cooperative research and development agreements or CRADAs, that would have been impossible a decade ago. In 1989, there were no CRADAs with the Department of Energy's national labs; in 1998, the number was over 800. So, we've come a long way. But there's still work to be done. It's still not as easy to collaborate with the national labs as it should be, nor are collaborations as common as they need to be to keep our labs on the cutting edge of science and technology. This legislation takes the next steps in that direction. There are three fundamental ideas running through this bill. The first is that scientific and technical collaboration with the national labs is good for our economy and essential to the future of the labs. The labs will be unable to succeed in their missions unless they can easily work with other technical institutions. Why? Because that's where the bulk of cutting edge technology is today. Consider the following. Real federal spending on R&D peaked in 1987, but from 1987 to 1997, national R&D grew by 20%. The federal government was responsible for none of that growth, and now accounts for only about a quarter of national R&D spending. In the same period, industrial R&D grew by over 50% and accounted for around 95% of the growth in national R&D. As Nobel laureate Dr. Burt Richter stated during his testimony on DOE's reorganization, ``All of the science needed for stockpile stewardship in not in the weapons labs.'' That's why I was so concerned with the ability of the labs to collaborate during the reorganization debate. I emphasize how collaboration helps the labs because it's a point that's often missed in our discussions of tech transfer, CRADAs, and other such things. When legislation making it easier to work with the labs was passed in 1989, we were in the midst of a ``competitiveness crisis'' and looking for ways to use technology to improve our economic performance. After all, innovation is responsible for 50% or more of our long term economic growth. With these roots, people usually focus on how collaborating with the labs helps US industry by giving it access to a treasure trove of technology and expertise. For example, over a 100 new companies were started around DOE technology in the last four years. And, the fact that industry has been collaborating with the labs and recently paying for a greater share of those partnerships is good evidence that its getting something of value. The economic benefits from these collaborations are real and a primary reason I've pushed them for many years. But the benefits back to the labs are real too. A recent letter from Los Alamos to me stated, ``Working with industry has validated our ability to predict . . . changes in materials . . ., improved our ability to manufacture . . . replacement parts with greater precision and lower cost, and enhanced our ability to assure the safety and reliability of the stockpile without testing.'' As an example, Sandia's collaboration with Goodyear Tire has helped Goodyear produce computer simulations of tires--an extremely complex problem--and helped Sandia improve its modeling and production of neutron generators, a critical component of nuclear weapons. Technical collaborations with our labs that have a clear mission focus by the lab and a clear business focus by the company are good for our economy and good for the labs' missions. The second fundamental idea flows from the first. If collaborations with the labs are beneficial, we should keep working to make them better, faster, and more flexible--much like the collaborations we see sprouting throughout the private sector. Hence, this bill includes provisions to: Establish a small business advocate at the labs charged with increasing small business participation in lab procurement and collaborative research; Establish a technology partnership ombudsman at the labs to ensure that the labs are known as good faith partners in their technical relationships; Authorize DOE to use a very flexible contracting authority called ``other transactions,'' which was successfully pioneered by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to manage some of its collaborative projects in innovative ways; and Significantly streamline the CRADA approval process for government owned, contractor operated laboratories like Sandia, allowing the labs to handle more of the routine CRADAs themselves, and allowing more flexibility in the negotiation of intellectual property rights--all to make CRADA's more attractive to industry. The third fundamental idea that runs through this bill is that if collaboration is important to our economy and to the success of the labs, then the local technical institutions near the lab--the universities and companies that might work with the lab--matter a great deal. We know that the environment inside an institution, how it's managed, will help determine how innovative it is. Managing innovation is more art than science, and that's why people are always visiting places like 3M. Well, just as the internal environment affects how innovative an organization is, its external environment, the organizations near it that might collaborate with it, also help determine how innovative it is. When the technical institutions in a region form a high quality, dynamic network, they can meld into what's been called a ``technology cluster'' that dramatically boosts innovation and economic growth throughout the region. We see this most famously in places like Silicon Valley, or Route 128, or Austin, TX. In most of these places, there is a large research university that serves as the anchor innovator seeding the cluster. With that phenomena in mind, this bill seeks to harness the power of technology clusters for the benefit of the labs' missions and the labs' communities, with the labs as the anchor innovator. The bill authorizes the labs to work with their local communities to foster commercially oriented technology clusters that will help them do their job. Projects under this ``Regional Technology Infrastructure Program'' would be cost shared partnerships between a lab and nearby organizations with the clear potential to help the lab achieve its mission, leverage commercial technology, and commercialize lab technology. This is not about outsourcing a lab's functions, but about promoting technical capabilities near the lab that are commercially viable and useful to the lab. Thus, the lab gets highly competent collaborators nearby and the region gets high tech economic growth. Let me give an example. Imagine a lab that does research in optics that has optics companies nearby. The lab and the companies discover they both need better training for their machinists and skilled workers. So they agree to set up and share the cost of an advanced training program for their workers at the local community college. This is good for the workers, good for the companies, good for the lab. Other types of projects this program might fund include: Local economic surveys and strategic planning efforts; Technology roadmaps for local industry; Personnel exchanges among local universities, firms, and the lab; Lab based small business incubators or research parks; and Joint research programs between a group of local firms and the lab. We have some real life examples of this kind of thinking in the research parks Sandia and Los Alamos are setting up to collaborate with industry and promote economic growth. And Argonne, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Sandia have programs to link their technology with venture capital, to get it into the marketplace, which can only help advance the lab's mission. This bill will encourage the labs to systematically experiment with more projects like those. Now, some might think that the Internet will make proximity irrelevant to collaboration. But that's not the case, as simple observation of Silicon Valley shows; it's not been dissipating, it's been growing. Close collaboration will remain easier among close neighbors, because it partly depends on people who know each other and are rooted in a community--which is why one provision of this bill is a study on how to ease employee mobility between the labs and nearby technical organizations. The Internet complements and strengthens collaborations, but is not a complete substitute for having collaborators nearby. Thus, even as the Internet grows in influence, it will still make sense to harness the power of technology clusters to help our labs do their jobs and to promote high tech economic growth in their communities. Mr. President, for many years I've pushed for and supported efforts to make it easier for our national labs to work with industry, universities, and other institutions. I've done this because I think it's good for the science and security missions of our labs, good for our economy, and good for my home state of New Mexico. I think this bill is a comprehensive package that will yield more of those benefits, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a summary, and letters of support for this bill from the Technology Industries Association of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on Sunday William C. Gordon was installed as the 16th President of the University of New Mexico. A psychologist by training, Dr. Gordon came to New Mexico by way of Wake Forest University, and Rutgers, where he earned his Ph.D. He taught at the State University of New York before moving to Albuquerque more than twenty years ago. Serving as a Professor of Psychology, then as chairman of the department, he became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. From there he became the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs and then assumed the job of interim president. It was during that period, and after a national search had been conducted, that he himself was named President in March of this year. Distinguished and well respected, Dr. Gordon has worked diligently throughout his administrative career to improve the university not only for the students and faculty, but for the staff and the wider community. He has sought to improve both the education people are getting, and the way they are getting it. The University of New Mexico is our state's largest institution of higher learning. The potential this represents is not lost on Dr. Gordon, and we look to him for leadership well into the 21st century.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, for yielding time and also for his eloquent statements in opposition to going to a vote on this treaty. First, I know everyone says we shouldn't talk about the process, that the process is history. But I think we should talk about the process and talk about the fact that next Tuesday is not the time this Senate should dispose of this issue. The reality is that there is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of confusion. I learned early in my career that when you are uncertain, the best thing to do is sleep on it, take a little time, and let the issue resolve itself in your mind before you move ahead. And clearly there are a lot of unknowns out there that we need to know before we finally vote on this issue. I hope that leadership--particularly the majority leader--will find a way to step back from this vote and give the Senate time to get the newest estimate from the intelligence community about what the capabilities of Russia are with regard to low-yield weapons development and also to get other expert advice. Clearly, this is an issue of monumental importance. As we start a new century, we should not rush to judgment before we have given every Senator an opportunity to learn the issue and to understand the implications of it. Our nuclear arsenal was developed, and has been maintained, because we believe having a safe and credible and reliable nuclear arsenal has improved and continues to improve U.S. security. I believe that. I am sure we will continue to maintain that nuclear arsenal as long as we still have that judgment. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is the issue now before us, raises the question of whether we can continue to maintain our nuclear deterrent and maintain our national security through having that nuclear deterrent under a regime of no additional nuclear testing. I believe we can. I believe the benefits we derive from going ahead with this treaty and in slowing the spread, and the improvement, of nuclear weapons around the world by others make this treaty very much in our national interest. Some have argued that without the ability to test nuclear weapons, we cannot have 100-percent confidence that those weapons will work as intended. I agree with that. I think it is undoubtedly true that an unlimited testing regime will give us a higher degree of confidence in our own nuclear weapons than no testing at all. Clearly, that is true for all of our potential adversaries as well. They will do better at developing weapons, and they will have a more capable, reliable nuclear arsenal to point at us--potential adversaries will--if we go ahead and have them pursue unconstrained testing. But we can, in my view, have sufficient confidence in the reliability of our weapons through the work we have labeled the Stockpile Stewardship Program. This is a program that has been discussed frequently on the Senate floor. It is one I have spent many hours studying and trying to understand in the nuclear weapons laboratories in my State--Los Alamos and Sandia. I think we need to balance against this concern about lack of 100- percent confidence. We need to balance against that the consequences that would result from a rejection of this treaty by the Senate. Senator Moynihan spoke about the likely reaction of a rejection of this treaty in India and Pakistan, both countries which have demonstrated their nuclear capability already and are on the way toward developing a real nuclear arsenal that can be used against each other or other countries. Other Senators have talked on the floor about the likely effect of a rejection of this treaty on China or on Russia. The simple fact is that the United States is far ahead of any other country in the world in our ability to maintain our nuclear deterrent under a no-testing regime. Our allies--and that includes our allies who have nuclear weapons-- believe it is in their interest and in the interest of the world for us to go forward with this treaty and believe that, on balance, their security will be enhanced if we go forward with this treaty. If that is their judgment--those nuclear-capable countries depend much more on testing than we do--that a no-testing regime will, on balance, improve their national security, then I have trouble seeing how entry into a test ban treaty can put us at a comparative disadvantage when we have tremendous capability to determine the reliability and safety of our weapons without testing--not 100-percent capability, but we have great capability and capability that far exceeds that of any other potential adversary. Let me say, in closing, I would like to go back to this issue of procedure and where we go. Since it is clear to me, and I think to all Senators and all observers of the Senate, that the two-thirds votes necessary under our Constitution to ratify this treaty are not present today in the Senate and are not likely to be on Tuesday, I think it would be a tragic mistake for us to go ahead with that vote next week. I hope very much that cooler heads prevail, as the Senator from Virginia said earlier in the discussion. I hope cooler heads prevail and we find a way to put this off to a time when we can approach it with more knowledge and better judgment. In the final analysis, the question we must decide is whether this treaty will reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons, reduce the number of states with nuclear arsenals, and lessen the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the next century. That is the issue before us. I believe it will accomplish each of those end results. I believe the treaty will have that effect. When it does come to a vote, I hope very much that two-thirds of the Members of this Senate have the good judgment to support the treaty. Mr. President, I see there is another Senator wishing to speak. I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may we have 4 minutes equally divided?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me read a few sentences from it. This is addressed to me, Senator Bingaman. On behalf of the nation's Governors, I write to express our strong support for your amendment to provide states with additional funds to help turn around schools that are failing to provide a quality education for Title I students. It goes on to say: Earlier this year, the National Governors' Association (NGA) adopted an education policy that recognizes the important role of the states in providing technical assistance to local school districts to help them implement federal education programs. It goes on to say: . . . the policy calls on the federal government to provide states with sufficient funds to enable states to provide school districts with the tools to meet federal program requirements. Your amendment would provide such funding. Therefore, NGA supports your amendment and will urge other Senators to support the adoption of it. This is a good amendment. The States support it. It will help dramatically in improving our schools. We should not postpone this. We should not kick this down the road and say we will deal with it sometime in the future. We should do it today. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me sum up what the amendment does. It is an amendment to set aside $200 million of title I funds to be targeted at helping schools that are failing. We give a lot of speeches about how we need to help failing schools. This is a chance to vote to help failing schools. The amendment does not add money to the bill. The amendment says we are serious about accountability. We are giving the States some funds, earmarking some funds so they also can be serious about accountability in the expenditure of title I funds. I have a letter from the National Governors' Association. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time is there at this point?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, is there time remaining on the amendment I have offered?

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I might just respond that we will try to get that information to the Senator from Georgia before the vote occurs at 11:30.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I was informed that the Governors Association supports this amendment, and that the States would want the initial ability to use these funds. Does the Senator have information to the contrary? I know he raised a concern about requiring States to do something different. My information is that this is the authority they would want.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I ask if the Senator will yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment, as I have said before, should not be a partisan issue. I know many of the amendments that have been brought to the Senate floor in recent days and weeks and even months have been voted along partisan lines. This amendment should not be. The need for accountability is not a partisan issue. Just yesterday, Governor Bush from Texas talked about his plan for improving accountability in title I schools. Under his plan, school districts and schools would have to show improvement in test performance. If schools improved, they would be rewarded with additional funds. If schools did not improve in 5 years, those funds would be taken and given to parents or students in vouchers of $1,500 each. The problem with this proposal is it provides the stick, a very big stick with dire consequences for schools that do not perform, but it does not provide resources to help those schools avoid that failure. This proposal says if you can figure out how to turn your school around with the meager resources you have, fine; if you cannot, then we will let the clock run out and then take the money away, so your odds against succeeding become insurmountable. What this amendment will do is provide that assistance to those schools immediately when the failing nature of that school is recognized. I think this is an extremely important amendment. It is something we ought to do. I hope this is considered by each Senator as a good-faith effort to better use the funds we are spending in this bill. Once again, I remind all my colleagues, this amendment does not add money to the bill. This is not a question of whether we are going to spend more or less on education. It is a question of how effectively we can spend the funds we are going to spend. Mr. President, I gather my time is up. I yield the floor at this time and wait for the response, if there is any opposition to the amendment, which I certainly hope there is not.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me read a few sentences from the letter from Michael Davis. He is a very capable, respected, State school superintendent from my State. He writes: Dear Senator Bingaman: I write to applaud your efforts to secure a dedicated source of funding for States and local school districts to implement the accountability provisions of Title I. As you know, we have been working hard in New Mexico to raise standards and implement a rigorous accountability system. We will be unable to successfully implement high standards and accountability, however, unless we are able to provide local districts with additional resources to help them address weaknesses in their educational programs and to turn around failing schools. I believe that your amendment seeking to direct $200 million for this purpose will go a long way towards ensuring proper enforcement of the accountability provisions under Title I. Then, in the letter from the executive director, Mr. Ambach, of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the point that is made strongly is that the current $40 million that is available under the 0.5-percent set-aside for States is woefully inadequate for local school districts to serve and improve low-performing schools. I think those two letters speak very strongly in favor of what we are trying to do. I very much appreciate the support of Senator Kennedy, Senator Wellstone, Senator Reed, and Senator Kerrey. Let me say a few other things before my time is up. How much time remains on my side?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent two letters be printed in the Record at this point, one from Michael Davis, who is the superintendent of public instruction from my home State of New Mexico, and the other from Gordon Ambach, who is the head of the Council of Chief State School Officers. The first letter from Mr. Davis is in support of the amendment. The second letter supports providing additional funds to States to implement the accountability provisions of title I. Mr. Ambach had not seen the amendment yet when he wrote that letter.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues from Arizona, California, and Texas in introducing the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act of 1999.'' The purpose of the bill is to expand to scope of the current SCAAP law to allow counties and states to be reimbursed not only for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, but also for the costs of prosecuting them, defending them and detaining them. Currently, SCAAP only pays for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens convicted of a felony in the United States. This means that counties and states do not get reimbursed for the indirect and direct costs leading to such a conviction. Because many illegal aliens arrested for drug smuggling or alien smuggling by federal agents are prosecuted by the county prosecutors, this has put an enormous strain on the county's prosecution budgets and has burdened the already struggling indigent defense programs. With the expansion of SCAAP, the counties will finally get some relief. Another positive change to the SCAAP law is the addition of juvenile incarceration as a reimbursable expense. Many drug traffickers are using teenagers to transport drugs across the border, knowing that we do not currently have a good system for dealing with criminal illegal juvenile aliens. Because these teens' parents are not living in the United States, the county jails are required to detain the teens pending adjudication. The other option is to let the teens go. Neither option is good from a law enforcement perspective, but the cost of detaining a juvenile places an enormous burden on the counties' juvenile detention facilities. I am pleased that this bill considered the counties' concerns and included the costs of detaining juveniles as a reimbursable expense. In 1994 I supported the original SCAAP bill. Between 1996 and 1999, the federal government has reimbursed the State of New Mexico $4.5 million for costs incurred in incarcerating criminal illegal aliens under this program. New Mexico counties have been reimbursed more than $1.4 million for similar costs. However, this $6 million reimbursement represents but a small fraction of the actual costs expended by New Mexico jails and prisons. This bill seeks to increase the amount available for reimbursement by raising the amount authorized to $200 million between 2002 and 2005. The second part of this bill addresses another problem facing the border states. Because many towns near the US-Mexico border are a mere stones throw away from much larger Mexican towns and cities, many Mexican nationals often cross the border illegally in search of emergency medical services due to the lack of adequate facilities in Mexico. This bill will reimburse the health care providers required to provide emergency medical services to illegal aliens. The border counties in New Mexico have repeatedly expressed their concern about the lack of federal assistance for emergency medical services provided to undocumented immigrants. Yet, under current law, New Mexico border communities are not eligible to be reimbursed for providing such emergency medical services. This has placed a significant financial burden on the public and private hospitals who are just trying to do what they think is right--provide emergency treatment to those in need. This lack of federal assistance has been very detrimental to New Mexico because the number of undocumented immigrants seeking medical attention in New Mexico is very high compared with the population of the New Mexico border community. Between January 1, 1999 and August 31, 1999, Mimbres Memorial Hospital in Deming, New Mexico reported that 22 percent of its patients that were unable to pay for their medical care were residents of Mexico. These individuals accounted for $379,311 in charges that had to be absorbed by this hospital. In a town of roughly 10,000 people, this is a sizeable amount for a local hospital to write-off as uncollectible. With the passage of this bill, New Mexico will be eligible to participate in this federal reimbursement program. Because the authorized amount for this program will be increased to $200 million between 2002 and 2005, this change will not affect the reimbursements to other states. This increase in funding is sorely needed to adequately address the financial burdens that illegal immigration imposes on the border communities. I commend my fellow members of the Senate Southwest Border Caucus for working together on a bill what will make these necessary changes to the SCAAP program and address the financial hardship that illegal immigration imposes on our border communities. I thank Senator Kyl for introducing this bill and I encourage the Senate to take up this bill and pass this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I rise today in strong support of the use of dental sealants for children for purposes of oral health promotion and disease prevention. They have been proven to be safe and effective in the prevention of dental caries in children, and when coupled with fluoridated water systems can virtually eliminate dental decay and reduce tooth loss. I believe that the most successful dental sealant programs for our children covered in the EPSDT programs in Medicaid could be those that are school linked and community based. Analyses show that an amount of $1,000,000 is a reasonable amount to begin a demonstration project such as this.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa and urge the department to conduct the demonstration project in an expeditious manner. Despite the fact that dental sealants have been available for over 25 years, their use remains low and children deserve this preventive service. pediatric research initiative

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Domenici and I are offering to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study of and the appropriateness of the geographic adjustment factor that is used in Medicare reimbursement calculations as it applies particularly to our State of New Mexico. We have a very serious problem in our State today; many of our physicians are leaving the State. The reimbursement that is available under Medicare, and accordingly under many of the health care plans in our State, is less for physicians performing procedures and practicing medicine in our State than it is in all of our surrounding States. We believe this is traceable to this adjustment factor, this geographic adjustment factor. This is a system that was put into place in 1992. It now operates, as I understand it, such that we have 89 geographic fee schedule payment areas in the country. We are not clear on the precise way in which our State has been so severely disadvantaged, but we believe it is a serious problem that needs attention. Our amendment directs that the Secretary conclude this study within 90 days, or 3 months, report back, and make recommendations on how to solve the problem. We believe it is a very good amendment. We recommend that Senators support the amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleagues from Arizona, California, and Texas in introducing the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program II and Local Medical Emergency Reimbursement Act of 1999.'' The purpose of the bill is to expand to scope of the current SCAAP law to allow counties and states to be reimbursed not only for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, but also for the costs of prosecuting them, defending them and detaining them. Currently, SCAAP only pays for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens convicted of a felony in the United States. This means that counties and states do not get reimbursed for the indirect and direct costs leading to such a conviction. Because many illegal aliens arrested for drug smuggling or alien smuggling by federal agents are prosecuted by the county prosecutors, this has put an enormous strain on the county's prosecution budgets and has burdened the already struggling indigent defense programs. With the expansion of SCAAP, the counties will finally get some relief. Another positive change to the SCAAP law is the addition of juvenile incarceration as a reimbursable expense. Many drug traffickers are using teenagers to transport drugs across the border, knowing that we do not currently have a good system for dealing with criminal illegal juvenile aliens. Because these teens' parents are not living in the United States, the county jails are required to detain the teens pending adjudication. The other option is to let the teens go. Neither option is good from a law enforcement perspective, but the cost of detaining a juvenile places an enormous burden on the counties' juvenile detention facilities. I am pleased that this bill considered the counties' concerns and included the costs of detaining juveniles as a reimbursable expense. In 1994 I supported the original SCAAP bill. Between 1996 and 1999, the federal government has reimbursed the State of New Mexico $4.5 million for costs incurred in incarcerating criminal illegal aliens under this program. New Mexico counties have been reimbursed more than $1.4 million for similar costs. However, this $6 million reimbursement represents but a small fraction of the actual costs expended by New Mexico jails and prisons. This bill seeks to increase the amount available for reimbursement by raising the amount authorized to $200 million between 2002 and 2005. The second part of this bill addresses another problem facing the border states. Because many towns near the US-Mexico border are a mere stones throw away from much larger Mexican towns and cities, many Mexican nationals often cross the border illegally in search of emergency medical services due to the lack of adequate facilities in Mexico. This bill will reimburse the health care providers required to provide emergency medical services to illegal aliens. The border counties in New Mexico have repeatedly expressed their concern about the lack of federal assistance for emergency medical services provided to undocumented immigrants. Yet, under current law, New Mexico border communities are not eligible to be reimbursed for providing such emergency medical services. This has placed a significant financial burden on the public and private hospitals who are just trying to do what they think is right--provide emergency treatment to those in need. This lack of federal assistance has been very detrimental to New Mexico because the number of undocumented immigrants seeking medical attention in New Mexico is very high compared with the population of the New Mexico border community. Between January 1, 1999 and August 31, 1999, Mimbres Memorial Hospital in Deming, New Mexico reported that 22 percent of its patients that were unable to pay for their medical care were residents of Mexico. These individuals accounted for $379,311 in charges that had to be absorbed by this hospital. In a town of roughly 10,000 people, this is a sizeable amount for a local hospital to write-off as uncollectible. With the passage of this bill, New Mexico will be eligible to participate in this federal reimbursement program. Because the authorized amount for this program will be increased to $200 million between 2002 and 2005, this change will not affect the reimbursements to other states. This increase in funding is sorely needed to adequately address the financial burdens that illegal immigration imposes on the border communities. I commend my fellow members of the Senate Southwest Border Caucus for working together on a bill what will make these necessary changes to the SCAAP program and address the financial hardship that illegal immigration imposes on our border communities. I thank Senator Kyl for introducing this bill and I encourage the Senate to take up this bill and pass this worthwhile legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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