Columbia Orbiter Memorial Act

Mr. President, today I introduce a Senate companion to a joint resolution already introduced in the House by Congressman Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

This resolution is quite simple. It requires the President to report to Congress on the potential costs and consequences of military action in Iraq before ordering the United States Armed Forces to war in Iraq. This is a resolution that simply requires that this country know what it is we are getting into before, not after, war breaks out.

Of course, it is my hope, and I very much believe the President when he asserts that it is his hope, that there will be no war. But judging from the administration's statements and Iraq's behavior, with each passing day it becomes more and more likely that the United States will engage in a major military operation in Iraq. It is entirely possible that we will undertake this operation without a great deal of international support. And while I have no doubt in my mind that our admirable men and women in uniform will be successful in any military engagement, I do have doubts about whether or not the American people truly understand the magnitude of the task the country is setting for itself--not only with regard to the military engagement itself, but with regard to occupation and reconstruction.

I do not believe that Americans have been told much about what the future holds beyond the most optimistic of scenarios, and frankly I do not believe that Congress has heard much about the full range of potential scenarios either.

This resolution would require that the President provide that information before ordering our men and women in uniform to war in Iraq.

The resolution asks for a full accounting of the implications for homeland security of initiating military action against Iraq. It asks for an accounting of the implications for the fight against terrorism. It asks for an accounting of the implications for regional stability in the Middle East, and for an accounting of the implications of war in Iraq for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

This resolution recognizes that there may be positive and negative implications to consider. It does not pre-judge these issues. But it does acknowledge that Members of Congress, the elected representatives of the people, should be privy to the thinking of our experts and leaders in the executive branch about the effect of war in Iraq on all of these issues. It is our responsibility to weigh these questions, to weigh the consequences of starting a war.

And, while I do not doubt for a moment the skills and competence of our brave service men and women, I do know that their efforts alone are not enough to ensure a lasting victory. It is crucial to the ultimate success of U.S. policy, that the American people understand the potential risks and the potential rewards of this national undertaking. We are considering the American military occupation of a major Middle Eastern country, and we are considering this in a very dangerous time. This country must have its eyes open before we move forward.

This resolution also requires that the administration explain to Congress the steps that the United States and our allies will take to ensure that any and all weapons of mass destruction will be safeguarded from dispersal to other rogue states or international terrorist organizations. If the goal is disarmament, then defeating Saddam Hussein's forces is not going to accomplish the mission at hand. Do we know where the WMD sites are? One would assume that we would share that information with the inspectors if we had it. But if we do not, how will we ensure that WMD and the means to make them are not dispersed across Iraq's borders, or sold off to the highest bidder, in the event of invasion. Saddam Huessein's order is despicable and dangerous. But disorder is dangerous too. Again, we need to understand the risks, and we need to understand the plan.

This resolution requires the Administration to explain the plan for stabilization and reconstruction. Earlier this week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on reconstruction in Iraq. We had hoped to get answers to some of the basic questions that senior officials from the State and Defense Departments were utterly unable to respond to as recently as February. But the Administration canceled the appearance of General Jay Garner, the director for the Pentagon's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, who was slated to come before the committee. And so the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate is left scanning the newspapers to get a sense of Administration plans, extrapolating from tidbits in the press to understand potential costs, and quizzing very capable experts--but experts not privy to Administration planning--about the universe of possibilities. This is simply unacceptable.

This resolution calls for the Administration to clearly report to Congress on the nature and extent of the international support for military action against Iraq and the impact of military action against Iraq on allied support for the broader war on terrorism. I believe that this is the single most important issue before us. I know that I disagree with some of my colleagues on the wisdom of the Administration's policy in Iraq. But I am certain that none of us disagree on the proposition that the first priority of all of us in government must be the fight against terrorism. And we all know that we cannot fight terrorism alone. But I have heard directly from foreign officials who are telling me that it will be more difficult for them to be strong supporters of the fight against terrorism if the U.S. acts in Iraq without the United Nations' approval.

This resolution calls on the Administration to explain clearly the steps that it will take to protect United States soldiers, allied forces, and Iraqi civilians from any known or suspected environmental hazards resulting from military operations. Everyone in this body has heard from veterans of the Gulf War who suffer and struggle even today, long after their period of sacrifice for their country should have ended. Based on what we know from these veterans, it is entirely reasonable to demand a plan now, not after the fact.

The resolution also calls for the Administration to provide estimates of the American and allied military casualties, Iraqi military casualties, and Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from military action against Iraq, and measures that will be taken to prevent civilian casualties and adhere to international humanitarian law. I know that America is a resilient society and a resolute society. But I am not at all

sure that Americans have been prepared for anything but the best-case scenario, and that is a disservice to the American people and a disservice to our military.

This resolution calls for an estimate of the full costs associated with military action against Iraq, including, but not limited to, providing humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people and to neighboring nations in light of possible refugee flows, reconstructing Iraq with or without allied support, and securing long-term political stability in Iraq and the region insofar as it is affected by such military action. I can tell you that right now in the Budget committee, we are flying blind, trying to make fiscally responsible decisions for the future while the Administration remains unwilling to provide an honest accounting of what this war will cost, or what it will cost to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraq, or what the long process of reconstruction will cost. We know that these are not small figures. And unfortunately, it looks as though we will be proceeding without a great deal of international support, meaning less burden-sharing and more shouldering of this cost on our own. And that is why this resolution also calls for an accounting of the anticipated short and long term effects of military action on the United States economy and the Federal budget.

I feel strongly that we should have demanded this information long ago. But we continue to ask, because Congress continues to have constitutional responsibilities. And I continue to hear from a tremendous number of my constituents who are deeply concerned about the prospect of a war with Iraq. The sources of their concern and their views on the issue vary, but in virtually all cases, they want to understand the range of options before us, and they are demanding more information about the costs and commitments they will incur as a result of decisions that we make here. They are right to insist on that information, to insist that we exercise some foresight here and wrestle honestly with the consequences that may follow from taking military action. Without such a discussion, we cannot hope to answer the most important question before us--will a given course of action make the U.S. more or less secure in the end.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and to insist that the Administration provide this information before war breaks out. I voted against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq last fall, because I was uncomfortable with the Administration's shifting justifications for war, dissatisfied with the vague answers available at the time relating to our plans for dealing with weapons of mass destruction and reconstruction in Iraq, and most of all, because I was concerned that this action would actually alienate key allies in the fight against terrorism. But even those who voted differently surely must believe that we have a responsibility to anwser these questions now, and to share the answers with our constituents, so that this great country is operating not on wishful thinking or simple ignorance, but with an understanding of the facts before us, and the awesome task ahead.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Miller, the bipartisan Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act of 2003. During the 107th Congress, we were successful in legislating sweeping reforms in education with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. This year we hope to complete reauthorization of another important federal education initiative--the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. As we consider this legislation, our greatest responsibility is to improve the quality of the education that students with special needs receive.

One of the problems fostered by the current system, which stands in direct contrast to our purpose, is the excessive paperwork burden imposed on our special education teachers. This burden takes valuable time away from classroom instruction and is a source of ongoing frustration for the special education teachers working on the frontlines. As a result, this undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children. The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act addresses this problem and seeks to offer solutions that will benefit special education teachers and most importantly the children they instruct.

This bipartisan legislation includes four main provisions to correct the problem of burdensome paperwork. First, the Department of Education, in cooperation with state and local educational agencies, would be required to reduce the amount of paperwork by 50 percent within 18 months of enactment of the legislation and would be encouraged to make additional reductions. Second, the General Accounting Office, GAO, would conduct a study to determine how much of the paperwork burden is caused by Federal regulations compared to State and local regulations; the number of mediations that have been conducted since mediations were required to be made available under the 1997 IDEA amendments; the use of technology in reducing the paperwork burden; and GAO would make recommendations on steps that Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and the States and local districts can take to reduce this burden within six months of the passage of this legislation.

Third, mediation would be mandatory for all legal disputes related to Individual Education Programs, IEPs, to better empower parents and schools to focus resources on a quality education for children rather than unnecessary litigation within one year of enactment of this legislation. Fourth, the Department of Education is directed to conduct research to determine best practices for successful mediation, including training practices, that can help contribute to the effort to reduce paperwork, improve student outcomes, and free up teacher resources for teaching. The Department would also provide mediation training support services to support state and local efforts. The resources to fund these requirements would come from money appropriated through Part D of IDEA.

The Council for Exceptional Children, CEO, states, ``No barrier is so irksome to special educators as the paperwork that keeps them from teaching.'' According to a CEC report, concerns about paperwork ranked third among special education teachers, out of a list of 10 issues. The CEC also reports that special education teachers are leaving the profession at almost twice the rate of general educators. Statistics concerning the amount of time special education teachers spend completing paperwork are telling. 53 percent of special education teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their job to a great extent. They spend an average of five hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of two hours per week. More than 60 percent of special education teachers spend a half to one and a half days a week completing paperwork. One of the biggest sources of paperwork, the individualized education program, IEP, averages between 8 and 16 pages long, and 83 percent of special education teachers report spending from a half to one and a half days each week in IEP-relating meetings.

One special education teacher expressed her frustration with excessive paperwork to me. ``I began my professional career as a lawyer, but found that I had a passion for interacting with and helping students and became a teacher. However, I decided last year that I could no longer work with special education students from my district. I came this decision reluctantly and solely on the basis of the increasing and burdensome amount of paperwork required for special education summer services. As a teacher, your job is to interact, teach, and participate in a student's learning experience, in particular that of a student of special needs. As a result of the paperwork and fear of lawsuits by school districts, I am no longer able to interact with my students.''

There are three primary factors associated with burdensome paperwork. The first factor is federal regulations. The 1997 IDEA regulations set forth the necessary components of the IEP and require teachers to complete an array of paperwork in addition to the IEP. According to the National School Boards Association, NSBA, ``These requirements result in consuming substantial hours per child and cumulatively are having a negative impact on special educators and their function.'' Second, there are misconceptions at the state and local levels regarding Federal regulations that result in additional requirements imposed by the States and local school districts. The U.S. Department of Education compiled a sample IEP with all the necessary components, and it is five pages long. However, most IEPs are much longer. The third factor is litigation and the threat of litigation. In order to be prepared for due process hearings and court proceedings, school district officials often require extensive documentation so that they are able to prove that a free appropriate public education, FAPE, was provided to the special education student.

A key provision of the bill makes mediation mandatory for all legal disputes related to IEPs. There are several benefits to using mediation as an

alternative to due process hearings and court proceedings. According to the Consortium for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education, CADRE, mediation is a constructive option for children, parents, and teachers and allows families to maintain a positive relationship with teachers and service providers. Parents have the benefit of working together with educator and service providers as partners instead of as adversaries. If an agreement cannot be reached as a result of mediation, parties to the dispute would retain existing due process and legal options.

Mediation is also a much less costly, less time consuming alternative for all parties concerned. Parents do not have to pay for mediation sessions, because under the 1997 IDEA amendments, States are required to bear the cost for mediation. States and local districts save a lot of money as well. According to the Michigan Special Education Mediation Program, MSEMP, the average hearing cost to the state is $40,000; it pays approximately $700 per mediation session. The NSBA reports that attorney fees for school districts average between $10,000 to $25,000. In contrast, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Education says that it pays mediators $250 per session. The cost effectiveness of mediation is apparent. Not only does mediation save money, it saves time as well. According to the Washington State Department of Education, a mediation session may generally be scheduled within 14 days of a parental request, whereas it may take up to a year to secure a court date.

Most importantly, mediation is a successful alternative to due process hearings. At least some form of agreement is reached in 80 percent of sessions nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 85 percent of voluntary special education mediations end in agreement in which both parties are satisfied. According to the New York State Dispute Resolution Association, mediation ending in resolution of the conflict occurs for 75 percent of referrals, and in Wisconsin, approximately 84 percent of those who chose mediation would use it again.

The Teacher Paperwork Reduction Act is meant to alleviate a serious problem that causes frustration and discouragement among dedicated special education teachers who expend energy and countless hours in order to give students with disabilities an equal opportunity to learn. It is only fair and right to find ways to reduce paperwork in order to give teachers more time to spend educating our students and changing their lives, and less time wading through stacks of paper. I would invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation to help teachers, schools, and parents provide a better education for all students so that no child is left behind.

Madam President, I am glad to see an Alaskan in the chair as I make this statement. This morning, as it usually happens, when I turned on my computer, I found a series of e-mails from friends at home. I do not always have time to read them then, but I saw one from a very close friend, who has been a friend now for over 50 years-- Frank Reed, a former neighbor, a person who has helped me in many ways in my life. He asked me to read this article he attached to his e-mail. I get a little disturbed when I see that the testament is a little longer than the e-mail. But I found that he had sent me a verbatim transcript of an article by Alistair Cooke entitled ``Peace For Our Time,'' that was on the BBC News on Monday, February 3 of this year. I want to read that tonight because I think it reflects what I have been trying to say on the floor of the Senate these past several weeks.

The following was written and spoken by Alistair Cooke. He said this:

. . . I promised to lay off topic A--Iraq--until the

Security Council makes a judgment on the inspectors' report

and I shall keep that promise.

But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've

listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a

monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on

a beach--making a great noise and saying the same thing over

and over. And this ordeal triggered a nightmare--a day-mare,

if you like.

Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English

voice of an old man--Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: ``I

believe it is peace for our time''--a sentence that prompted

a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then

from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper

in the land.

There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should

receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one

unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: ``I believe we have

suffered a total and unmitigated defeat.'' He was, in view of

the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 with the British

prime minister's effectual signing away of most of

Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, within months,

Hitler walked in and conquered. ``Oh dear,'' said Mr.

Chamberlain, thunderstruck. ``He has betrayed my trust.''

During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought

occurred to me--every single official, diplomat, president,

prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a

toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just

drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners.

Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but

only two years before, when he broke the First World War

peace treaty by occupying the demilitarized zone of the

Rhineland. Only half his troops carried one reload of

ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low

to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million

British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot.

It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply

counted the numbers of Britons who were ``for peace.''

The slogan of this movement was ``Against war and

fascism''--chanted at the time by every Labour man and

Liberal and many moderate Conservatives--a slogan that now

sounds as imbecilic as ``against hospitals and disease.'' In

blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything,

absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.

At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented,

though today it's a catchword. After all the Rhineland was

what it said it was--part of Germany. So to march in and

throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive--wouldn't it?

Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with

confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country

by country--``course by course'', as growler Churchill put

it.

I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully

grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in

the age of anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted

against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly

what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the

French press.

The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion,

``negotiation, negotiation''. They negotiated so successfully

as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as

one famous French leftist said:

``We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open

city--no bombs on us!''

In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was

disarmament and collective security. Collective security

meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. it

would put down aggressors, even though, like the United

Nations, it had no army, navy or air force.

The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when

Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The

League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was

chanted in the House of Commons--the League and collective

security is the only true guarantee of peace.

But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided

there was no collectivity in collective security and started

a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain,

warning against the general belief that Hitler had already

built an enormous mechanized army and superior air force.

But he's not used them, he's not used them--people

protested.

Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War

you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now

shiver at the famous Labour men--Major Attlee was one of

them--who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing

to the League of Nations as the savior.

Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the

present crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written

elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies

are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation

may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is

different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well

be so here.

All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing

through 2003 . . .

Madam President, I was but 14, not 30. I remember the tension we all felt at that time, as country after country became destroyed by Hitler. Previously on the floor of the Senate, I mentioned Hitler and compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. I was criticized even by the papers at home in Alaska.

I was delighted to read Alistair Cooke's article that Frank Reed sent to me this morning, and I commend it to the rest of the Senate.

This haunts me. It haunts those of us who lived through the thirties to know

we might go through the thirties again because too many people refuse to listen to the truth, refuse to listen to what some of us see in Saddam Hussein, as being another Hitler.

(The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 628 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last Congress, I introduced the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct a flawed capital gains tax definition, which includes precious metals investments as ``collectibles.'' This simple flaw in the tax code has discouraged investments in gold and other precious metals for nearly fifteen years. I rise today to reintroduce the Fair Treatment for Precious Metals Investors Act to correct this problem.

My State, Nevada, is the third largest producer of gold in the world behind Australia and South Africa. Largely because of Nevada's exports, America enjoys a good trade surplus of more than $1 billion. U.S. gold is purchased around the world in financial markets from London to Zurich to Hong Kong.

Historically, precious metals investments derived their value from their rarity. Today, however, precious metals coins and bars are specifically designed and produced by governments to be used as an investment vehicle for those commodities similar to stocks and bonds. My legislation will correct the outdated tax classification of precious metal bullion and apply to precious metals holdings the same capital gains tax treatment as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds.

In 1997 and 1998, The Taxpayer Relief Act and the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act set two basic types of capital gains tax rates: short-term capital gains, which are taxed at between 15 and 39.6 percent, and long-term capital gains which are taxed at a maximum rate of 20 percent. Long-term capital gains attributable to investments defined as ``collectibles'', (vintage wines, rare coins, and the like), however, are taxed at a maximum rate of 28 percent. Although precious metal bullion coins are intended to be used as investments in the precious metals they contain, they are still classified as ``collectibles'', and are taxed at the 28 percent maximum rate. The Taxpayer Relief Act allowed precious metal bullion coins held in IRA accounts to be taxed at the same rate as stocks and other capital assets. The bill I introduce today would treat all precious metal investments with the same tax equity.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today for myself and Senator Ensign to reintroduce the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act. Last year the Senate unanimously passed this bill, which will at last release funds the United States has held in trust for the Western Shoshone people for over 24 years. Unfortunately the House was unable to complete its consideration of the bill before the last Congress adjourned.

Historically, the Western Shoshone people have resided on land within the central portion of Nevada and parts of California, Idaho, and Utah. For more than a hundred years, the Western Shoshone have not received a fair compensation for the loss of their tribal land and resources. In 1946 the Indian Claims Commission was established to compensate Indians for lands and resources taken from them by the United States. In 1962 the commission determined that the Western Shoshone land had been taken through ``gradual encroachment.'' In 1977 the commission awarded the tribe in excess of $26 million dollars. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the commission's award. It was not until 1979 that the United States appropriated over $26 million dollars to reimburse the descendents of these tribes for their loss.

The Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third of the tribal members are unemployed; for many of those who do have jobs, it is a struggle to live from paycheck to the next. Wood stoves often provide the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like other American Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational attainment. The high school completion rate for Indian people between the ages of 20 and 24 is dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate that is 12.5 percent higher than the rest of the National. For the Western Shoshone, the money contained in the settlement funds could lead to drastic lifestyle improvements.

After 24 years the judgment funds still remain in the United States Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a single penny of this money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty-four years, the original trust fund has grown to well over $121 million dollars. It is the past time that this money should be delivered into the hands of its owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this distribution. It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an immediate distribution of their money.

This Act will provide payments to eligible Western Shoshone tribal members and ensure that future generations of Western Shoshone will be able to enjoy the benefit of the distribution in perpetuity. Through the establishment of a tribally controlled grant trust fund, individual members of the Western Shoshone will be able to apply for money for education and other needs within limits set by a self-appointed committee of tribal members. I will continue my ongoing work with the members of the Western Shoshone and the Department of Interior to help resolve any current land issues.

It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim distributed without further delay. They have already voted twice to firmly and decisively voice their interests. Members of the Western Shoshone gathered in Fallon and Elko, NV in May of 1998. They cast a vote overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported the distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. Again on June 2002 they cast a vote overwhelmingly in support of the distribution of the judgment funds at a rate of 100 percent per capita. 1,647 Western Shoshone voted in favor of the distribution of the funds; only 156 opposed. I rise today in support and recognition of their decision. The final distribution of this fund has lingered for more than twenty years. During the 107th Congress, the Indian Affairs Committee approved and the full Senate unanimously passed this bill. It is clear that the best interests of the Tribe will not be served by prolonging their wait. Twenty-four years has been more than long enough. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Cantwell entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill addresses an inequity that was created during the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized certain States that had done the right thing and had expanded Medicaid coverage to children prior to the enactment of the bill.

While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and ``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new CHIP funding for the children of their respective States, the legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington, among others. This had the effect of penalizing a certain group of States for having done the right thing.

The ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' addresses this inequity by allowing those States, which had expanded coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty by April 15, 1997, before the enactment of CHIP, to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP allotments for coverage of those children covered by Medicaid above 133 percent of poverty-- putting them on a more level field with all other States in the country.

As you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton agreed to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and provide $48 billion over ten years as an incentive to States to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 200 percent of poverty or beyond.

During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain States were already undertaking Medicaid or separate State-run expansions of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes. The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania to convert their separate State-run programs into CHIP expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding for their expansions.

Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for their expansions. This created an inequity among the States where some were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP and others were denied. Therefore, our bill addresses this inequity.

New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age 18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235 percent of poverty--above the level of the vast majority of states across the country.

Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP 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 CHIP allocations.

New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP as other comparable states were.

The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 uninsured children. In other words, almost 21 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the second highest rate of uninsured children in the country.

This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are, consequently, often eligible for Medicaid but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all of the remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.

Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many States are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico.

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 S-CHIP, 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 to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity. The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States, including Washington and Vermont.

Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they must receive the health coverage for which they are eligible.

The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other states across the country are doing.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.