Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 11:15 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 9:45 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing for the Honorable Susan E. Rice.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 15, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 15, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Investing in Health IT: A Stimulus for a Healthier America'' on Thursday, January 15, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Job Creation and Economic Stimulus in Indian Country.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Eric H. Holder, Jr., to be Attorney General of the United States on Thursday, January 15, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., in room SR-325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, shortly, the Senate will vote on cloture on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Act. I obviously support going ahead with cloture on that legislation. Let me explain briefly why and then respond to a few of the points that my colleague from Oklahoma made. Yesterday, we did spend several hours trying to determine if it was possible to develop a unanimous consent agreement so that we could have a couple of votes today on amendments that the Senator from Oklahoma has proposed. Despite good-faith efforts on both sides, we were unable to reach that agreement. I appreciate Senator Coburn's willingness to work with us. Also, I appreciate Senator Murkowski's involvement in those discussions. I have spoken at some length earlier this week about this package of bills, so I will not repeat the details that I talked about before, but I would like to briefly summarize the bill. This legislation contains over 160 separate public land and related bills, with roughly an equal number of provisions sponsored by Democratic and Republican Senators. Apart from the bipartisan makeup of the package, almost all of these bills were considered in the Energy Committee and were reported in our committee after amendment. I should emphasize that there was an extensive process of amending these bills in our committee. They were reported after amendments by unanimous vote. We have made some further modifications to some of these bills in an effort to address any remaining concerns. S. 22 incorporates 15 new wilderness bills, which combined will result in over 2 million acres of new additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System in nine different States. It will add over 1,000 miles of new rivers to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It will add over 2,800 miles to the National Trails System. It will add three new units to the National Park System and enlarge the boundary of over a dozen existing parks. It will designate a new national monument, three new national conservation areas, and legislatively establish the Bureau of Land Management's National Landscape Conservation System. The bill will protect over 1 million acres of the Wyoming Range for hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses. And to help reduce the catastrophic fire problems of recent years, it authorizes a new forest landscape restoration program. In addition to the public land components of the package, the bill will ratify three extremely important water rights settlements. Those are located in California, in Nevada, and in my home State of New Mexico. The legislation related to those settlements will end literally decades of litigation. And it includes many other land and water authorizations to help local communities throughout the country but especially in Western States. Despite the scope of the conservation measures included in the package, it is not, as some have suggested, inconsistent with our national energy policy. I heard my colleague indicate that in his view this legislation in total would--I believe the phrase he used was-- markedly undermine energy independence in our country. I strongly disagree with that characterization of what we are doing. Almost none of the wilderness areas designated by the bill are in areas with significant energy development potential. As to the one area which does contain energy potential--that is the Wyoming Range Legacy Act legislation--let me give some details as to that legislation. The legislation seeks to protect from future oil and gas activity lands in the Wyoming Range not currently under lease. As of November 6, 2007, there were 18 oil and gas leases within the proposed withdrawal area. Those leases cover a total of 70,600 acres. These leases represent valid existing rights and will not in any way be canceled by this legislation. The leases are primarily located in the area that has some of the most significant mineral development potential. In addition to those oil and gas leases, there are 35 oil and gas leases covering 44,977 acres that have either been issued and are under protest or have been sold but not yet issued. This bill, again, does not in any way cancel or impede development of those leases. Under the estimated U.S. Geological Survey's estimates, they believe the natural gas potential for the area is 1.5 trillion cubic feet, and the mean oil potential is 5 million barrels. Relative to other known gas reserves in the area, the numbers are smaller in both size and scope. There are approximately 4,300 producing oil and gas wells in the three counties that are touched by this legislation. There is a proposal being considered for up to 4,339 additional wells that would not be affected by the legislation. There is production currently taking place nearby that will not be stopped by the provisions here. We had the Congressional Budget Office look at this, and they have issued a statement which I will quote for information of Senators. When they refer to S. 2229, that is the legislation that is incorporated in this bill. They say: Based on information from the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, CBO estimates that enacting S. 2229 would have no significant effect on the Federal budget. Under the current law, CBO anticipates that neither agency will offer to sell mineral leases or other interests in land that would be withdrawn by the bill within the next 10 years; hence, we anticipate no foregone receipts from sales of such interests over the period of 2009 through 2018. So as I was saying, the legislation, in my view, does not markedly undermine energy independence, it does very little to impede our ability to develop oil and gas resources, and this is a piece of legislation that is strongly supported by the Senators from Wyoming, it is strongly supported by the Governor of Wyoming, and it is legislation that I myself support as well. Several Senators have previously spoken about the many years they have spent working on some of the provisions in this package. Especially in the West, there are few issues as complex and difficult to resolve as land and water use issues. Given the years of work invested by interested citizens and communities, by State and local governments and by individual Senate delegations to address and resolve the many competing issues, it is time to bring these issues to closure. There has been an extensive public process for the individual bills contained in this package, both locally and in the Congress, with almost all receiving the unanimous approval of our committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over these matters. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture this morning on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Act, so we can advance this long overdo legislation forward for Senate approval. Mr. President, how much time remains for the majority?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this time, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the time of 10:30 is about to arrive. I yield my time. The yeas and nays have already been ordered or are they mandatory? Cloture Motion

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the quorum call time be charged equally between the two sides.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am here today to speak about the growing violence in Gaza. I support the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate and durable cease-fire. In my view, both the Israeli airstrikes and the Palestinian rocket attacks must stop immediately, and Israeli ground forces should withdraw from Gaza. I regret that President Bush chose to have the United States be the only Security Council member not to support this U.N. resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the U.N. resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Last week, the Senate responded to the hostilities by passing S. Res. 10, a resolution that I do not support. While I agree with some parts of the resolution, I believe it left out important provisions. The resolution called for Hamas to end the rocket and mortar attacks but it did not call on Israel to stop its airstrikes and ground assault. Nor did the resolution call on Israel to withdraw from Gaza. Moreover, I believe the resolution downplayed the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Thousands of people in Gaza do not have access to food, clean water, or medical care. The U.K. Foreign Minister, David Miliband, speaking about humanitarian conditions in Gaza said, ``the word `crisis', which is sometimes overused, is wholly appropriate'' to describe how bad things are. He made that statement to describe how bad he saw that things are at this time. I support Israel's right to defend itself. Israel has no stronger ally than the United States, and we have no better friend in the region than Israel. But friends can make mistakes. The rocket attacks that Israel has suffered are unacceptable. But I believe Israel's use of force has been excessive and I do not believe it will help Israel achieve its long-term goals. Instead of weakening Hamas, the incursion is boosting support for Hamas both among Palestinians and the Arabic world and it is undermining support for moderates in the region. Instead of making Israel's enemies fear its military power, I believe this conflict shows its enemies that they can taunt Israel into reacting so strongly that it undermines its international support. Instead of rebutting the accusations that Israel has ignored the long-deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the growing death toll and worsening living conditions will fuel similar accusations long into the future. This violence is but another chapter of violence in the long history of the Middle East. What is needed is an international effort to broker an immediate truce and to build that into a lasting peace. A lasting peace requires a two-state solution. It is hard to see how such an agreement can be achieved without the deep involvement and leadership of the United States. I have been disappointed that the Bush administration has failed to lead the peace process for the past 8 years. President Obama should not repeat that mistake after he takes office next week. He should appoint a special envoy to the region soon after his Secretary of State is confirmed by the Senate. President Obama should commit his administration to a steady and persistent effort to engage both Israelis and Palestinians in finding a political solution to the conflict that has long plagued this region. Exhibit 1 Resolution 1860 (2009) Adopted by the Security Council at its 6063rd meeting, on 8 January 2009 The Security Council, Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008), Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state, Emphasizing the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians, Expressing grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm; and emphasizing that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected, Expressing grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Emphasizing the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings, Recognizing the vital role played by UNRWA in providing humanitarian and economic assistance within Gaza, Recalling that a lasting solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders, 1. Stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; 2. Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment; 3. Welcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid; 4. Calls on Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through urgently needed additional contributions to UNRWA and through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee; 5. Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism; 6. Calls upon Member States to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained reopening of the crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel; and in this regard, welcomes the Egyptian initiative, and other regional and international efforts that are under way; 7. Encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation including in support of mediation efforts of Egypt and the League of Arab States as expressed in the 26 November 2008 resolution, and consistent with Security Council resolution 1850 (2008) and other relevant resolutions; 8. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders, as envisaged in Security Council resolution 1850 (2008), and recalls also the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative; 9. Welcomes the Quartet's consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009; 10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague Senator Akaka to introduce legislation today designed to make several very important changes to current law to ensure that U.S. citizens receive the Medicaid to which they are entitled. Since July 1, 2006, most U.S. citizens and nationals applying for or renewing their Medicaid coverage face a new Federal requirement to provide documentation of their citizenship status. Recent reports indicate that tens-of-thousands of U.S. citizens, and in particular children, inappropriately are being denied Medicaid benefits simply because they don't have access to newly required documentation. The articles below and report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlight this very serious problem. Hospitals, physicians, and pharmacies may not be willing to treat these individuals until they have a source of payment, but they cannot qualify for Medicaid until they produce a birth certificate and ID. This new Federal requirement was added to Medicaid by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, DRA, enacted February 8, 2006. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, TRHCA, signed into law December 20, 2006, included some amendments to the DRA citizenship documentation requirement, primarily to exempt certain groups. Prior to enactment of the DRA, states were permitted to use their discretion in requiring such citizenship documentation. Under Section 6036 of the DRA, citizens applying for or renewing their Medicaid coverage must provide ``satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality.'' The DRA specifies documents that are acceptable for this purpose and authorizes the HHS Secretary to designate additional acceptable documents. No Federal matching funds are available for services provided to individuals who declare they are citizens or nationals unless the state obtains satisfactory evidence of their citizenship or determines that they are subject to a statutory exemption. According to a CRS Report for Congress updated April 15, 2008, ``Based on a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 22 of 44 states report declines in enrollment due to the new citizenship documentation requirement. Based on another survey by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 13 states report a significant negative impact on enrollment and another 24 states report a modest impact. Among seven states detailed in an earlier report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only Wisconsin has a data system that can identify denials and terminations due to a lack of citizenship documentation, and it reports that about 19,000 people had their Medicaid eligibility denied or terminated for this reason between July 31, 2006, and March 1, 2007.'' A second wave study conducted from September 2007-March 2008 by the Department of Health Policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health published October 2008, ``Another distressing finding is the impact the citizenship documentation requirements appear to be having on SCHIP. Many states, for important reasons, use joint applications for both Medicaid and separate SCHIP programs. The effect, however, is to apply the citizenship documentation requirements to both programs, thereby delaying coverage for both groups of children.'' ``Even if most or all of the reported Medicaid enrollment declines are due to the citizenship documentation requirement, a key question is whether the people who are being denied, terminated, or deterred from applying are U.S. citizens, rather than unauthorized aliens or other ineligible noncitizens. Of the 22 states reporting enrollment declines to GAO, a majority (16 states) attribute them to Medicaid coverage delays or losses for people who appear to be U.S. citizens.'' It is important to note that citizenship documentation requirements do not affect Medicaid rules relating to immigrants--they apply to individuals claiming to be citizens. Most new legal immigrants are excluded from Medicaid during their first five years in the U.S. and undocumented immigrants remain eligible for Medicaid emergency services only. The legislation I am introducing would make several very important changes to current law to ensure that U.S. citizens receive the Medicaid to which they are entitled. First, the legislation would restore citizenship verification to a state option. Specifically, states would be permitted to determine when and to what extent citizenship verification is required of U.S. Citizens. States would also be permitted to utilize the standards most appropriate to the their population as long as such standards were no more stringent than those currently used by the Social Security Administration and includes native American tribal documents when appropriate. Second, the legislation would ensure that individuals are afforded a reasonable time period to provide citizenship documentation utilizing the same reasonable time period standard that is available to legal immigrants to provide satisfactory evidence of their immigration status. Third, the legislation protects children who are U.S. citizens by virtue of being born in the United States from being denied coverage after birth because of citizenship verification requirements. Fourth, the legislation also clarifies ambiguities in Federal law to ensure that these citizen children, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, are treated like all other low-income children born in the United States and are deemed eligible to receive Medicaid services for one year. Finally, the legislation also ensures that the thousands of citizen children and adults, who were erroneously denied Medicaid coverage, may receive retroactive Medicaid eligibility for coverage they were inappropriately denied because of citizenship verification requirements. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this critical legislation, which protects low-income U.S. citizens from being inappropriately denied Medicaid coverage because of lack of documentation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague Senator Akaka to introduce legislation today designed to make several very important changes to current law to ensure that U.S. citizens receive the Medicaid to which they are entitled. Since July 1, 2006, most U.S. citizens and nationals applying for or renewing their Medicaid coverage face a new Federal requirement to provide documentation of their citizenship status. Recent reports indicate that tens-of-thousands of U.S. citizens, and in particular children, inappropriately are being denied Medicaid benefits simply because they don't have access to newly required documentation. The articles below and report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities highlight this very serious problem. Hospitals, physicians, and pharmacies may not be willing to treat these individuals until they have a source of payment, but they cannot qualify for Medicaid until they produce a birth certificate and ID. This new Federal requirement was added to Medicaid by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, DRA, enacted February 8, 2006. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, TRHCA, signed into law December 20, 2006, included some amendments to the DRA citizenship documentation requirement, primarily to exempt certain groups. Prior to enactment of the DRA, states were permitted to use their discretion in requiring such citizenship documentation. Under Section 6036 of the DRA, citizens applying for or renewing their Medicaid coverage must provide ``satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality.'' The DRA specifies documents that are acceptable for this purpose and authorizes the HHS Secretary to designate additional acceptable documents. No Federal matching funds are available for services provided to individuals who declare they are citizens or nationals unless the state obtains satisfactory evidence of their citizenship or determines that they are subject to a statutory exemption. According to a CRS Report for Congress updated April 15, 2008, ``Based on a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 22 of 44 states report declines in enrollment due to the new citizenship documentation requirement. Based on another survey by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 13 states report a significant negative impact on enrollment and another 24 states report a modest impact. Among seven states detailed in an earlier report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only Wisconsin has a data system that can identify denials and terminations due to a lack of citizenship documentation, and it reports that about 19,000 people had their Medicaid eligibility denied or terminated for this reason between July 31, 2006, and March 1, 2007.'' A second wave study conducted from September 2007-March 2008 by the Department of Health Policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health published October 2008, ``Another distressing finding is the impact the citizenship documentation requirements appear to be having on SCHIP. Many states, for important reasons, use joint applications for both Medicaid and separate SCHIP programs. The effect, however, is to apply the citizenship documentation requirements to both programs, thereby delaying coverage for both groups of children.'' ``Even if most or all of the reported Medicaid enrollment declines are due to the citizenship documentation requirement, a key question is whether the people who are being denied, terminated, or deterred from applying are U.S. citizens, rather than unauthorized aliens or other ineligible noncitizens. Of the 22 states reporting enrollment declines to GAO, a majority (16 states) attribute them to Medicaid coverage delays or losses for people who appear to be U.S. citizens.'' It is important to note that citizenship documentation requirements do not affect Medicaid rules relating to immigrants--they apply to individuals claiming to be citizens. Most new legal immigrants are excluded from Medicaid during their first five years in the U.S. and undocumented immigrants remain eligible for Medicaid emergency services only. The legislation I am introducing would make several very important changes to current law to ensure that U.S. citizens receive the Medicaid to which they are entitled. First, the legislation would restore citizenship verification to a state option. Specifically, states would be permitted to determine when and to what extent citizenship verification is required of U.S. Citizens. States would also be permitted to utilize the standards most appropriate to the their population as long as such standards were no more stringent than those currently used by the Social Security Administration and includes native American tribal documents when appropriate. Second, the legislation would ensure that individuals are afforded a reasonable time period to provide citizenship documentation utilizing the same reasonable time period standard that is available to legal immigrants to provide satisfactory evidence of their immigration status. Third, the legislation protects children who are U.S. citizens by virtue of being born in the United States from being denied coverage after birth because of citizenship verification requirements. Fourth, the legislation also clarifies ambiguities in Federal law to ensure that these citizen children, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, are treated like all other low-income children born in the United States and are deemed eligible to receive Medicaid services for one year. Finally, the legislation also ensures that the thousands of citizen children and adults, who were erroneously denied Medicaid coverage, may receive retroactive Medicaid eligibility for coverage they were inappropriately denied because of citizenship verification requirements. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this critical legislation, which protects low-income U.S. citizens from being inappropriately denied Medicaid coverage because of lack of documentation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009. This important legislation, which is cosponsored by Senators Hutchison, Durbin, and Feinstein, is aimed at addressing drug-related violence in Mexico by reducing the number of weapons that are illegally smuggled into the country. The ongoing violence in Mexico is having a devastating impact on the country. In 2008, more than 5,300 people were killed in Mexico--this is double the number in the previous year. During this last year, there were over 1,600 deaths just in Ciudad Juarez. Drug traffickers are warring with each other, assassinations of police and government officials are commonplace, lawyers and journalists have been killed, and many innocent civilians have been caught up in the crossfire. Border communities within the United States are also being directly impacted. Many of the people living in this region have strong family ties to Mexico and the violence makes it difficult to visit loved ones. U.S. border hospitals have had to provide medical care to the wounded under armed guard. And in New Mexico, we had to briefly shut down the Columbus Port of Entry due to gun battles in the Mexican border town of Palomas and provide police escorts to school buses passing through the area. At one point this last year, the entire police force in Palomas resigned due to threats by drug traffickers and the Chief of Police fled to the United States to seek asylum. Besides the horrific human toll this violence is having on communities throughout Mexico, it also impacts the overall economy of the border region. Everyday thousands of people travel back and forth between the United States and Mexico for business and pleasure. This flow of people and goods is an essential aspect of maintaining healthy economic activity on both sides of the border. However, the current security situation is hampering bilateral trade, new business ventures, and tourism. In these tough economic times, the violence exacerbates an already bad economic environment. The United States has taken some important steps to help Mexico fight drug traffickers, such as increasing bilateral cooperation and providing substantial financial assistance as part of the Merida initiative. However, there is much more that we can be doing to help quell this violence. One key area where more can and should be done is with regard to stopping the flow of weapons being smuggled into Mexico from the United States. According to the ATF, about 90 percent of the weapons confiscated in Mexico come from sources within the United States because firearms are much more readily accessible in the United States than in Mexico. These weapons are the so-called ``tools of the trade'' for narco-traffickers. They are the means by which cartels maintain control over drug corridors and the instrument they use to execute their scheme of violence and intimidation. In the four U.S. border States there are about 6,600 licensed gun dealers. The vast majority of these dealers act in accordance with the law, but drug gangs exploit the availability of weapons in the region to supply cartels on the Mexican side of the border with illegal high- powered weapons. The ATF has a very successful initiative in place to combat southbound illicit weapons trafficking, know as Project Gunrunner, but they need more resources to adequately tackle the problem. The Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act would provide these much needed resources. Specially, this legislation would authorize $30 million over 2 years to expand Project Gunrunner teams in the border region and $19 million to assign agents to U.S. consulates in Mexico to assist Mexican law enforcement with smuggling investigations. I would also like to make it clear that nothing in this bill limits the sale of firearms or places any additional restrictions on licensed dealers. This effort is only focused on enhancing the investigative capabilities of the ATF with regard to arms trafficking in order to weed out the bad actors and to ensure that weapons aren't being illegally smuggled across the border. The United States has traditionally focused on enhancing efforts to prevent illegal narcotics from being smuggled into the county. While we obviously need to dedicate resources toward this end, we also should be taking a comprehensive approach that recognizes that the northbound flow of narcotics is dependent on the southbound flow of weapons and currency. Denying traffickers the proceeds of drug sales and the ability to heavily arm their cartels is essential in reducing the drug flow into the United States. It is insufficient to simply rely on Mexican authorities to stop the flow of guns going into their country. Drug trafficking is a transnational threat and the solution must involve sustained cooperation between the United States and Mexico. We must do more on our side of the border to disrupt weapons smuggling if we are going to be successful in combating drug cartels. Instability and violence in Mexico is taking a toll on communities on both sides of the border. I strongly believe that this is an issue that deserves more attention, and I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise with co-sponsors Senators Leahy, Lieberman, and Cardin to introduce and ask your support for the Children's Health Equity and Technical Amendment Act. Since the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, in 1997, a group of States that expanded coverage to children in Medicaid prior to the enactment of SCHIP has been unfairly penalized for that expansion. States are not allowed to use the enhanced matching rate available to other States for children at similar levels of poverty under the act. As a result, a child in the States of New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania, because they were grandfathered in the original act or in Iowa, Montana, or a number of other States at 134 percent of poverty is eligible for an enhanced matching rate in SCHIP but that has not been the case for States such as New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and a number of others, including Connecticut, Tennessee, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Maryland. As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage of the majority of uninsured children in their states.'' For 6 years, our group of States has sought to have this inequity addressed. Early in 2003, I introduced the Children's Health Equity Act of 2003 with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Ms. Cantwell and we worked successfully to get a compromise worked out for inclusion in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee. This compromise extended expiring SCHIP allotments only for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 in order to meet budgetary caps. The compromise allowed States to be able to use up to 20 percent of our State's SCHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children at 150 percent of poverty that were part of our State's expansions prior to the enactment of SCHIP. That language was maintained in conference and included in H.R. 2854 that was signed by the President as Public Law 108-74. Unfortunately, a slight change was made in the conference language that excluded New Mexico and Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island and needed specific changes so an additional bill was passed, H.R. 3288, and signed into law as Public Law 108-107, on November 17, 2003. This second bill included language from legislation that I introduced with Senator Domenici, S. 1547, to address the problem caused to New Mexico by the conference committee's change. Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it must be periodically reauthorized. Most recently, this authority was renewed through fiscal year 2007 in Section 201(b) of the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-482. Without future authority, the inequity would continue with SCHIP allotments. This legislation would address that problem and ensure that all future allotments give these 11 States the flexibility to use our SCHIP allotments to pay for health care services of children. In order to bring these requirements in-line with those of other States, it would also lower the threshold at which New Mexico and other effected States could utilize the funds from 150 percent of the Federal poverty level to 125 percent. There is strong bipartisan support for addressing this inequity. Legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress in both H.R. 3584 by Republican Representative Barton, and 141 co-sponsors, and S. 2086 by Senator Trent Lott and other Republican leadership to expand the category of children eligible through this correction to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. This rather technical issue has real and negative consequences in States such as New Mexico. In fact, due to the SCHIP inequity, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from SCHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal SCHIP allocations. This legislation would correct this problem. The bill does not take money from other States' SCHIP allotments. It simply allows our States to spend our States' specific SCHIP allotments from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other States across the country are doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.