“Currently, Border Crossing Card holders can travel to cities like El Paso, but not nearby Las Cruces, Deming or Lordsburg,” said Udall in a statement. “This legislation makes a simple modification to boost commerce in important New Mexico communities with respect to our border security.”

Border Crossing Cards  are biometric cards which Mexican nationals can receive after passing a security and background check. They allow travel within the border zone for up to 30 days, although prior to August 2004 it was only 72 hours. Millions of the cards have been issued since the program first began in the late 1980s.

The Pew Hispanic Center (PDF) estimated in 2006 that the card was, at the time, a common method of entry for unauthorized immigrants, who would overstay the 30 day limit or work a job when the card does not authorize them to do so. However, many New Mexican border residents depend on temporary legal traffic from Mexico for their business.

The increase could be done either through an act of Congress or by a Department of Homeland Security rule change. In 1999, Arizona was allowed to increase the zone to 75 miles in order to benefit Tucson. Bingaman and Udall want the same change for New Mexico.

Sen. Bingaman said: “Over the past few years, Secure Rural Schools and PILT have been lifelines for financially-strapped rural counties and the thousands of Americans they employ and contract with. While we all have different perspectives on the county payments programs, we recognize how critical they are to our communities and the necessity of bringing together a broad, bipartisan coalition to support this plan if we are to have any chance of successfully securing funding.”

Sen. Murkowski said: “Until Congress can return federal land management to a system where our forests generate the jobs and economic activity they once did, Secure Rural Schools provides crucial funding to keep whole some of our most remote communities. I support this legislation as a temporary fix, fully aware that the only permanent solution is for the Forest Service to reinstate regular timber sales to provide some economic benefit to the communities within the national forest system.

“The PILT program was put in place to compensate communities with federal lands within their jurisdictions for lost tax revenue. Since I don’t expect Congress to grant local municipalities the right to tax federal lands, I see no reason why we should not continue funding this program for the foreseeable future.”

New Mexico would receive $56 million in county payments over the next five years. In addition, Bingaman estimates that New Mexico gets about $35 million in lieu of taxes each year, although that figure could vary depending on the distribution of federal land.

PILT would not be subject to the normal appropriations process, but would be reduced by five percent each year for the next five years, with the hope that it will eventually be phased out.

The federal government receives $13 billion annually from commercial activities on federal lands. As Murkowski’s comments indicate, some in Congress wish to expand logging, livestock grazing, and oil and gas leasing operations within federal lands, and allow states to have a larger stake in this economic activity. But conservationists caution against excessively exploiting national forest lands.

Current funding for PILT was provided in the emergency stimulus act passed under the Bush administration in 2008.

Last week, Luján joined Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), and Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) in sending a letter that cited low property costs, a skilled population, and the potential for job creation as reasons to locate a new USPTO branch in central New Mexico.

Currently the only other regional patent office is located in Detroit, Mich. The Act preserves this office and requires that two more offices be created in order to reduce the massive backlog of patent applications.

Luján proposed an amendment to the bill while it was being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives that requires officials to take into consideration the economic impact of the new patent offices, as well as the need for local skilled personnel, when determining its location. Here’s Luján defending his amendment:

From The Santa Fe New Mexican:

While the 21 percent increase last year affected more than 40,000 individual customers, this one potentially will affect 27,000 policyholders, Franchini said. Policyholders may have switched plans, moved to Medicare or simply dropped health insurance, he said.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico did not answer questions about how many people would be affected by the most recent rate-increase proposal, whether customers had been alerted about the erroneous letters or why the increase was needed.

[…]

According to the state Insurance Division, health care costs in New Mexico are going up an average of 12 percent per year. Those costs include doctor visits, nursing care, hospital stays, laboratory tests and diagnostic tests such as X-rays.

Weiss Ratings, a company that rates the financial health of insurance companies, released a report earlier this year saying that nationally, medical expenses declined by 1.3 percent to 3 percent — the first decline in a decade.

A 2009 report by The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, which analyzes health care policies and costs, says new medical technology, prescription drug use and the rise in chronic diseases have contributed the most to rising health care costs. Another Kaiser report found the increase in health-insurance premiums, out-of-pocket health spending and taxes for health care far outpaced both inflation and people’s average gross income increases.

In 2009, the market penetration of Blue Cross Blue Shield was 35 percent, according to information compiled (PDF) by the Center for American Progress. Presbyterian Health, a non-profit health group, comes in second, covering 30 percent of the state.

The latter came under even more scrutiny two years ago after raising rates by 24 percent and providing even less justification than Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS), submitting just over 30 pages in information to the state’s Insurance Division of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, compared to BCBS’s 100 pages.

Between 2004 and 2010, Presbyterian Health rate hikes totaled 88 percent, while BCBS pushed its premiums up by 150 percent.

Through the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), states are obligated to monitor trends in the rise of service costs to patients towards including or excluding inequitable policies by 2014, when health benefit exchanges are scheduled to go live. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has outlined to state authorities what an acceptable rate hike justification document should look like — the department has signed off on New Mexico’s rate review program.

The federal government encourages Individuals in search of affordable health care options to view this website for policy recommendations. The site will also monitor pending rate increases of ten percent or more.

Last week, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) wrote in a public statement the state has the second highest rate of uninsured residents in the country — 24.7 percent.

The bill would end all tax subsidies for the five largest oil companies, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says it would shave $21 billion over 10 years from the budget.

Bingaman, who is retiring this year, said he isn’t sure how he will vote on the bill or a likely Republican counterproposal.

“I’ve voted in some cases to remove and reduce tax breaks for the oil industry in other cases I’ve voted not to because I felt that the proposals covered too much,” he said in an interview with C-SPAN which will air this weekend.

On Thursday, heads of the five biggest oil companies argued that cutting the tax breaks would hurt job and economic growth.

“By undermining U.S. competitiveness, they would discourage future investment in energy projects in the United States and therefore undercut job creation and economic growth,” Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said at a hearing on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., is the sponsor of the legislation, titled the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act.”

The bill is likely to not have much, if any, Republican support. The bill would need some Republican votes and all Democratic votes to clear a Republican filibuster.

“I do not believe children should be punished for their parents’ actions,” Bingaman said in a statement. “It doesn’t make sense to deny children who grew up in our country an opportunity to earn a college degree, join the military and to contribute to our economy as productive members of society.”

Bingaman joined Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and 29 other senators in sponsoring the legislation.

To qualify for the DREAM Act, the immigrant must have come to the United States under the age of 15, graduate from high school or earn a GED, complete two years of college or military service and have good moral character to legalize their immigration status.

In a speech on immigration in El Paso Tuesday, Obama called for the DREAM Act to be passed.

“We should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents,” Obama said. “We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military. And that’s why we need to pass the DREAM Act.”

Obama said the lack of progress on immigration reform occurred despite work from people on both sides of the aisle.

“We’ve seen leaders of both parties who try to work on this issue, but then their efforts fell prey to the usual Washington games,” Obama said. “And all the while, we’ve seen the mounting consequences of decades of inaction.”

Obama said that Republicans have been looking to “move the goal posts” on securing the border.

“They wanted a fence,” Obama said. “Well the fence is now basically complete.”

“We’re here at the border because we also recognize that being a nation of laws goes hand in hand with being a nation of immigrants,” Obama said in his address at Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso.

Rep. Steve Pearce, the lone Republican in the New Mexico delegation, said before Obama’s speech that the president should have met with constituents in border communities in New Mexico.

“We cannot possibly address immigration without first facing our border security problems,” Pearce said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the President missed an opportunity to hear from my constituents about the need for serious measures.”

Sen. Tom Udall, a Democrat, said that he supported former President George W. Bush’s call for immigration reform and praised Obama for bringing it up again.

“Comprehensive immigration legislation is necessary to fix our broken borders and advance the educational and economic progress of the country,” Udall said in a statement. “I hope that the president’s speech is just the beginning of a bipartisan effort to pass real reform.”

Sen. Jeff Bingaman also called for immigration reform.

“Obviously, we must make security a centerpiece of comprehensive immigration reform,” Bingaman said. “But I do believe Congress needs to finally find a way to create a more thoughtful immigration system that works for our economy.”

After being “encouraged” by Obama’s speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights called for Obama to change its focus “on a costly, enforcement-only model.”

“Our national security, while critical, should never come at the expense of civil and human rights,” said Vicki Gaubeca, director of the ACLU-NM Regional Center for Border Rights. “At the very least, we need more transparency, accountability and oversight to prevent the border region from becoming a Constitution-free zone.”

Any sort of immigration reform seems unlikely over the next two years. The House of Representatives is controlled by a Republican majority, while the Senate has a Democratic majority. The two chambers have been unable to agree on a number of high-profile issues.

Watch the speech:

The Post’s Chris Cillizza cites an unnamed “source close to the decision,” adding that Bingaman has been pondering for months whether to run for a sixth term. After the November election, the New Mexico Independent reported that he said he was then “weighing retirment.” Bingaman has served in the Senate since 1983.

Cillizza writes that the likely decision is part of a Democratic strategy to get incumbents to declare their intentions about running early.

Reps. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján as well as former Lt. Gov. Diane Denish are sure to be mentioned as Democrats who could vie to replace Bingaman.

Update: Bingaman’s office confirms his retirement plans.

“Fortunately, it currently appears unlikely that the political turmoil will result in any disruption in oil production or transportation,” Bingaman said, according to Politico. “However, I note that whenever geopolitical events remind us of our vulnerability to world oil supply disruptions, it is a spur to consider energy policies that help us reduce that vulnerability.”

Bingaman has been pushing for increased renewable energy production in the United States and recently backed nuclear power as a source of energy.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) talked last week about moving a renewable energy standard during the lame-duck session. But according to a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the conversation, it appears that Reid decided there isn’t enough support to do so.

From the story:

Backers of a renewable energy standard, which would require that a certain percentage of the country’s electricity come from renewable sources like wind and solar, are keeping their fingers crossed that such a proposal can move in the lame-duck session. “We’re optimistic about the lame duck,” said one RES proponent who was not authorized to talk on the record.

Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) spoke on the phone Tuesday about the possibility of moving an RES during the lame duck. Bingaman’s spokesman, Bill Wicker, would not discuss the call. “This was a private conversation between two Members, so I have to respect that,” he said in an email. “But we all should know more about the lame duck before much longer.”

But a senior Senate aide with knowledge of the conversation downplayed the possibility that an RES would be brought up for a vote during the lame-duck session. “They had a good conversation and agreed it will be challenging to get 60 votes for expedited consideration of an RES during the limited time left in the session,” the aide said of discussion between Reid and Bingaman. Indeed, RES supporters would need to secure the support of two to four Republicans in addition to the four who already support the bill in order to get 60 votes.