Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, to clarify this, why would we have the debate on the overlying motion before we have the debate on the underlying motion and then try to deny a debate on the overlying motion at the appropriate time? I would ask the chairman and the ranking member to consider this process. It will save a lot of time if the person suggesting a second- degree amendment do the debate on the second-degree amendment. Did anybody here hear the debate on the first-degree amendment? That was debate on the second-degree amendment. So we disposed with the debate on the second-degree amendment. Now we ought to have the vote on the second-degree amendment, not another debate on the second-degree amendment and then go to the first-degree amendment without debate--or even with debate. If we are going to limit the time, we need to limit the time each time. And if somebody is going to do a second-degree amendment, they ought to do their debate on the second-degree amendment, face the vote on the second-degree amendment, and move on. But you ought to get your time to debate your motion at the time of the vote on the motion, not an hour later.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I guess there have been a lot of constitutional lawyers involved in all of this. I certainly want people to know we also conferred with constitutional lawyers and found a way to be able to do, on a one-time emergency basis, what needs to be done properly for the kids of Katrina and for any other major event where we have a large number of displaced students. But this one just deals with the one-time emergency event. It is constitutional. It does not, however, as Senator Ensign would like to do, resolve the voucher issue, and it does not resolve the faith-based initiative issue. But it does get help to kids, and that is what we are trying to do with all the education amendments we have today. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. ENZI. The pending amendment is not germane to the measure now before the Senate. I raise a point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act.

Mr. ENZI. I hate to debate a second-degree amendment that has not yet been sent to the desk.

Mr. ENZI. Parliamentary inquiry: I think I would have to withdraw that point of germaneness and he would have to withdraw his in order for us to have continuing debate. Is that not true?

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean my point of order was on my amendment and his motion to waive was on my amendment, not on his?

Mr. ENZI. That will be what the debate is on? I thought debate did not happen once the germaneness was entered.

Mr. ENZI. At the appropriate point in time I will be raising the point of germaneness. This amendment shows the Gordian knot we are trying to cut through so we can do the right things for the children of Katrina. What we have is constitutional. We are not trying, in the amendment that will be up as the original amendment, to resolve vouchers. We are not trying to resolve faith-based initiatives. What we are trying to do is do the right thing to treat the kids of Katrina the right way, and in order to solve this it has to be a very bipartisan way because we also will have to overcome a point of germaneness. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, together with Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Burns, I am pleased today to introduce ``The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005.'' This is a bipartisan effort aimed at relieving the worsening crisis of cost and coverage in America's health insurance system. As I speak today, we are nearing almost five years of double-digit growth in health insurance premiums--increases that have repeatedly exceeded more than five times the rate of inflation. Since 2000, for example, group premiums for family coverage have grown nearly 60 percent, compared to an underlying inflation rate of 9.7 percent over the same period. Those hardest hit are America's small businesses and those individuals outside of employer-provided insurance. These are the ones with the least market leverage and the weakest ability to pool risk. Already, among the very smallest of our businesses, those with fewer than 10 employees, only 52 percent offer coverage to their employees. As a former small business owner, I understand the difficulties these employers face when trying to provide health insurance for their employees. A constituent of mine, Mitchell Blake of Jackson, WY recently told me his story, and it illustrates what is happening to thousands of small businesses across America. Mr. Blake owns a small architecture firm with eight employees. He believes, like so many small business owners across America, that providing insurance for his employees not only promotes a healthy workforce but is simply the right thing to do. In the nine years since his firm opened, the deductibles for employees' health insurance quadrupled, co-pays rose by more than 35 percent, and monthly premiums grew by 20 percent. Since 2001, the company's profits have dropped by nearly one-third, due in large part to providing health insurance coverage. I am realistic. The biggest drivers of health care costs are ones that defy short-term solutions. These include advances in costly medical treatments, Americans' continuing appetite for such treatments, lack of transparency in pricing, and an outdated third-party payment system that insulates consumers from seeing the true cost of care they receive. Addressing these deep problems in a fundamental way will require years of effort and a great deal of political will. And yet, like most members in this body, I am hearing an ever-growing chorus of concern from my constituents about health insurance--and most especially from small businesses. America's families and small businesses don't want us to wait for the perfect solution or the perfect moment. They need real help, and they need it now. Recognizing this increasing concern, and as the new Chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I have made it a priority in recent months to seek the counsel of stakeholders, citizens, experts, and fellow members of Congress on how we might come together on a package of health insurance reforms we can realistically hope to enact in this Congress. The most well known proposal now on the table is the approach known as association health plans, or AHPs. Under this proposal, which was introduced in this Congress by Senators Snowe and Talent, qualifying trade associations would be permitted to band together their members for purposes of offering health coverage. Association health plans hold significant promise--particularly in the pooling of risk, economies of scale, and market clout they could lend to thousands of small businesses. At the same time, however, the AHP bills in their current form may also go too far in allowing some association plans to play by a separate set of rules than those governing the rest of the small group insurance marketplace--thereby tempting adverse selection and market disruption. Another concern is the fact that the current AHP proposals would shift primary oversight over many association plans away from the states and move it to the federal government. Regrettably, debate over these AHP pros and cons has hardened into a political and stakeholder stalemate--a stalemate that has helped block constructive action on new health insurance reform for nearly a decade. It is time we broke this logjam and moved forward. Toward this end, I sincerely appreciate the hard work of Senators Snowe and Talent and other AHP proponents in working with me on possible compromise approaches. And similarly, I am encouraged by what appears to be a growing pragmatic spirit among traditional AHP critics. The legislation we are introducing today is a compromise approach. This legislation blends a modified version of the current Snowe/ Talent AHP legislation with several additional reform initiatives applicable not just to association plans, but also to the wider health insurance marketplace. It is built around several fundamental principles, including: 1. giving associations a meaningful role, but on a level playing field; 2. streamlining the current hodgepodge of varying State regulation; 3. preserving the primary role of the States in health insurance oversight and consumer protection; 4. making lower-cost health plan options available; and 5. achieving meaningful reform without a big price tag that could cloud prospects for passage. With regard to association-based health plans, this bill preserves most of what is known as the ``fully insured'' component of the current AHP bill. That is, like the current AHP bill, my legislation would allow associations to independently pool their members for purposes of buying health coverage, thereby giving them needed strength in numbers and bargaining power. Unlike the current AHP bill, however, this legislation does not include the much more controversial option for associations to self- insure. Primary regulatory oversight of coverage issued to associations would remain at the state level and would not be transferred to Federal control. Although far from perfect, our state insurance commissions are much closer to the real problems confronted by purchasers of insurance in their communities than would be a Federal agency in Washington. Like the current AHP bill, this legislation would enable associations to take advantage of more streamlined rules in the areas of benefit design and rating. In an important departure from the current AHP bill, however, this greater streamlining would be made available not just to associations, but also to other purchasers of insurance. This adjustment will go a long way toward easing critics' fears that the current AHP bill would create an unlevel playing field and market disruption. In short, association-based plans should have the opportunity to harness the advantage of independent pooling and play a commercially meaningful role in the coverage marketplace. However, the coverage offered to association members should be subject to underlying regulatory and consumer protection requirements substantially comparable to those applicable to other entities offering similar coverage. In addition to addressing coverage offered through associations, the legislation we are introducing today also makes several very important improvements in the health insurance marketplace as a whole. For example, this legislation would permit issuers of coverage, both to associations and others, to offer lower-cost health plans free from some, though not all, of the current state benefit mandates that have proliferated over the past decade. Under this bill, those mandates that are currently in place in at least 45 States would continue in effect, but carriers would be permitted to offer plans that do not include other mandated benefits. The intent of this provision is not only to enable the offering of more affordable plan options, but also to make it easier for carriers to offer coverage on a multi-state basis and in more markets. This legislation would also set in motion a process to create greater harmonization in the current costly and competition-inhibiting hodgepodge of varying State health insurance regulation. However, even as it moves the system to greater uniformity in the rules applied, this approach would also carefully retain the current structure of State-based oversight and administration of insurance. This harmonization approach is patterned in general terms after the process used in the early 1990s to achieve greater stability in the Medicare supplemental, Medigap, market. The bill would establish a harmonization commission under the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop harmonized standards for health insurance regulation. The commission would work in close consultation with the NAIC and the States, and would consist of members representing a full range of perspectives and stakeholders. Upon issuance of model standards by the commission and their certification by the Secretary, the States would have two years to adopt them. If a state did not adopt the standards within the required timeframe, an insurer, following certain certification requirements, would be permitted to sell insurance in that State following the harmonized Federal rules. I want to take a moment to thank Senator Gregg, my predecessor as chairman of the HELP Committee. It is due in no small part to his efforts in the last Congress that health insurance market harmonization has matured in the policy community as a needed and valuable step. I look forward to working with him to make this and other aspects of this legislation as effective as it can possibly be. It is important to note that responsibility for oversight and management of the insurance market would remain with the States. What would change is that the rules being applied would become more uniform across State lines. This will enable a wider range of plans to be offered, because the offering of insurance on a multi-State basis will become easier. Competition will improve and costs will go down as more plans enter more markets. This bill reflects and incorporates much thoughtful input from those on many sides of this difficult issue. Such input continues even as I speak. Indeed, there are a number of important issues that remain to be worked on as we proceed with consideration of this bill. For example, we will be continuing discussions on how to smoothe the interaction between association-based plans and the individual insurance market. Similarly, work remains to be done in the calibration of transition rules, including with respect to the handling of older blocks of business vis a vis new plan options that will arise under the new system. Another issue deserving of further attention is the handling of the way carriers can become licensed in multiple States, and opportunities for making this process as smooth as possible while maintaining the authority of State insurance commissioners. I am open to suggestions, and I am open to compromise--but I am not open to continued inaction. My intention is for this bill to serve as a foundation for the swift finalization and passage of a health insurance reform package that will deliver real relief to America's small businesses and struggling families. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank my colleague for her commitment to continue to work with me on this issue in conference and look forward to reaching a compromise on this issue. I believe it is important that we get this issue right, so we can best serve students.

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ENZI. I thank my colleague from Washington for her work on higher education and for her passion about this issue in particular. She has been very interested in the higher education bill that we approved in committee, and was among those who supported its unanimous approval. My colleague mentioned the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act, which I support and which the committee acted to make permanent. I would add that the Taxpayer- Teacher Protection Act has reduced holdings of these loans by more than $1.2 billion in only 6 months since its enactment. While various estimates have been given about savings attached to ending recycling, it would also put an end to an estimated $840 million in student benefits provided by non-profit lenders over the next 5 years. By some estimates, that could mean a net loss of nearly $550 million in student benefits. Because of the efforts among lenders to provide the most competitive benefits, it is likely that the net loss in student benefits would be much greater. It is also important for me to point out that the Senator's amendment does not capture these savings for students, it only ends the practice of recycling, so the net loss in student benefits would likely exceed $1 billion. I would also note that Federal tax law prohibits non-profit lenders from retaining these subsidies that the Senator has described. I ask my colleague if she agrees with my assessment, that Federal tax law prohibits non-profit lenders from retaining the 9.5 percent subsidy, and that excess funds must be returned to the Treasury, or be used to provide student benefits.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered along with several of my colleagues be explained very simply--it commits the education savings above the HELP Committee reconciliation target to students. As chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, my committee received the largest reconciliation instruction--$13.65 billion in spending cuts over 5 years. That is nearly 40 percent of the overall target. We exceeded that target and reported legislation with net savings of $16.4 billion over 5 years. That is an additional $2.75 billion beyond HELP's reconciliation target. This amendment ensures that extra savings generated from education will be returned to students. Let me be clear, education savings should be for students. The amendment makes higher education more affordable for students by reducing the cost of college by lowering the origination fees students pay on Federal student loans. The current origination fee of 3 percent would be reduced to 2 percent under my amendment. This change of 1 percent can save students at least $500 over the 10-year life of the loan. For independent and graduate students, these savings are even greater. Why is it important that higher education be more affordable? Because education beyond high school and lifelong learning opportunities are vital to ensuring that America retains its competitive edge in the global economy. Technology, demographics, and diversity have brought far-reaching changes to the U.S. economy and the workplace, including an increased demand for a well-educated and highly skilled workforce. If we continue on the path we are on, we will not have people with the talents and the skills we will need to fill the jobs that will be created over the next few years. In this decade, 40 percent of job growth will be in positions requiring a postsecondary education. If our students and workers are to have the best chance to succeed in life and employers to remain competitive, we must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to achieve academically and obtain the skills they need to succeed, regardless of their background. For many, acquiring a postsecondary education or training will be the key to their success. This amendment also provides fiscally responsible temporary aid for more than 300,000 students displaced by Hurricane Katrina. As soon as they could, both public and nonpublic schools in neighboring communities, regions, and States enrolled these students. Many of these displaced students are still enrolled in schools that are not the ones they would have been attending had Hurricane Katrina not struck. This amendment includes provisions from the Hurricane Katrina Elementary and Secondary Education Recovery Act, S. 1904, a bipartisan compromise that accomplishes the common goal of providing relief to support the instruction and services that the students displaced by this terrible storm need in order to continue their education, regardless of whether it is in a public or nonpublic school. With this amendment we will be providing one-time, temporary, emergency aid on behalf of these students. These displaced students deserve help to continue their education under these extraordinary circumstances caused by a disaster of unprecedented scope. At the same time these States and schools need realistic, fiscally responsible assistance from the Congress to accommodate the students they have taken into their education system, who came to them without any property tax base or tuition payment which had already been made. Our top concern was to make sure that all displaced students continued their education. Some students are already returning home as their schools reopen, but severe problems of displacement remain. Many schools will remain closed for the entire school year. This amendment is a one-time temporary solution that sets aside ideological differences to make sure that children are not harmed unnecessarily by the impact of this unprecedented disaster. It focuses on the immediate needs of students with the expectation that they will return home to their local school. Let me briefly describe what this amendment does. First and foremost, it provides support for all displaced students, ensures accountability, and is fiscally responsible by sending the funds through regular channels to local school districts and accounts established on behalf of students attending nonpublic schools. The amendment helps schools directly impacted by the hurricane reopen their doors by providing $450 billion in grant assistance. These grants are meant to supplement FEMA funding to ensure the effective use of Federal funds and can be used to assist those who are working to reopen these schools. The largest portion of the funding under this amendment is focused on easing the temporary transition of students into new schools, both public and nonpublic, through one-time emergency aid. These funds will be used to help defray the additional costs incurred as a result of enrolling displaced students and provide assistance to schools in a nonideological and responsible way. Quarterly payments are made based on the head count of the displaced students temporarily enrolled in schools. The total for these four payments is $6,000--$7,500 for students with disabilities--per displaced student or the cost of tuition, fees, and transportation for nonpublic students, whichever is less. Parents of displaced students verify that they have made the choice for their child to attend a nonpublic school, and the nonpublic school must attest to the use of funds and the numbers of displaced students in attendance. The assistance provided through this amendment is temporary--it sunsets at the end of this school year. This amendment is necessary because of the extraordinary circumstances and the emergency nature of this situation. Our efforts must be focused on ensuring that the educational needs of the children affected by this unprecedented emergency are addressed, and I believe that this amendment achieves that goal. I am sure that some of you have heard from school groups opposing this amendment. I am surprised that groups representing the very schools and students that have been most impacted by this disaster are now opposing efforts to provide relief to their students, teachers, and administrators. It is important that we provide this much-needed relief to those who are working to make sure our displaced students don't suffer even more than they already have by this extraordinary disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Education savings should go to students. An investment in our students is an investment in our future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I am going to keep the litany going on country-of-origin labeling because I am upset, too. I want to speak in opposition to that specific provision in the conference report, H.R. 2744, which is the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. The report before the Senate includes an additional 2-year delay-- until September 30, 2008--for the implementation of mandatory country- of-origin labeling for covered commodities, except for fish. Fish was taken care of earlier. I am highly frustrated that implementation funding has been stripped because this is not the first time the conference committee has traveled beyond the scope of its conference. The House bill stripped funding for implementation of country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products for fiscal year 2006. The Senate bill did not include a delay. However, the conference result is a new 2-year delay that will keep consumers in the dark about the origin of their food. Mandatory country-of-origin labeling was included in the 2002 farm bill, yet consumers and producers, except those that catch, raise, or eat fish, will not see any benefit from country-of-origin labeling before the next farm bill is written. The opponents of labeling claim it will cost too much to implement. If we do not provide any funding for implementation, they will be right because any cost would be too high. I have heard the concerns of those who have responsibilities under the law, but those concerns can be addressed. I wish to point out I asked how much country-of-origin labeling would cost and was told it would be $1.5 billion to keep track of the cows so we would know where they came from. There are much simpler systems that can be put in place. Canada keeps track of all of this now. But when we started having problems with other animals, I asked how much an identification system for all animals would cost, and was told that it would only cost half a billion. Tell me, how can you keep track of every animal in the country for a third of what it costs just to keep track of cows? It is bad accounting, if you ask me. It is a plain, blatant statement they don't want to do country of origin. Why wouldn't they want to? I guess to increase the sale of beef from other countries. As I discussed this matter with my colleagues, it has become clear there is a need for education regarding country-of-origin labeling. Many of them were not here when the last farm bill debate was done. For those who were, the issue of country-of-origin labeling may not be familiar because it was not debated on the Senate floor. Country-of- origin labeling was included in the bill by way of an Agriculture Committee vote, and the final details of the law were worked out during a conference with the House. For those of my colleagues who were not personally familiar with the topic, they should not excuse themselves from consideration of this important issue because their State doesn't have significant numbers of livestock producers or farmers. I have livestock producers in my State, but I care about country-of-origin labeling because I am a consumer of agricultural products. I am sure that all of us have a lot of consumers of agricultural products in our States, so it should be a concern of every State. Everybody ought to be researching this. Everybody ought to be concerned that we do not have labeling. Country-of-origin labeling is relevant for agricultural producers, for consumers, and even for the Members of the Senate. In fact, the country-of-origin labeling law is based on the Consumer Right To Know Act of 2001, which I cosponsored. The law requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to put in place a system for U.S. retailers to inform their customers, when they buy beef, lamb, pork, or other perishable agricultural commodities, from what country the product originated. Food labeling can help increase consumer confidence by assuring consumers they are making informed and knowledgeable decisions about the products they buy. People know that the United States has the best, cleanest, and safest system for processing beef. Consumers should know if the meat they are bringing home to feed their family has been produced here or if it was imported from a country that may have fewer environmental, health, or safety regulations on livestock production. The country-of-origin labeling law is not a new concept in the world. Most U.S. trade partners, including the EU, require country-of-origin labeling for food. Many of the laws in other nations are more rigorous than the U.S. law. Virtually every other item a consumer buys in the United States indicates a country of origin. I understand that some people say we do not need to have country-of- origin labeling when the USDA is already moving forward on a national animal identification program. I have mentioned that I am fascinated by its cost. This is simply not the case. A national ID program will be useful for health safety reasons. It will help pinpoint and track the spread of disease, but this information will not be passed on to the consumer. Tracking disease is not the only concern. Providing information to consumers should also be a priority, and the only consumer-focused program is country-of-origin labeling. That is a priority for me. After the first 2-year country-of-origin implementing delay was added during an appropriations conference almost 2 years ago, I joined other Senators in cosponsoring legislation to move the implementation date closer to the present. With this second 2-year delay, it is readily apparent that opponents of country-of-origin labeling are using this delay tactic to gut country-of-origin labeling. Rather than meeting us for an open debate on the merits of the law, they continually put it off and allow it to work through the House process. By saying we need more time to implement the law, they are making the law voluntary. Time is one thing that the debate surrounding country of origin has had. This issue was debated in the years before its inclusion in the farm bill. Since the law was passed, 2 years were granted for rulemaking to ensure its thorough implementation. We have already had a 2-year delay. Removing funding for implementation did not improve the process, it stopped the process cold. For those who have genuine concerns regarding implementation of the country-of-origin labeling, the answer is not to put off implementing the law but to implement it properly. I wish to remind my colleagues why mandatory country-of-origin labeling passed in the farm bill. Consumers and producers want the information that it will provide. Consumers want to know. Personally I am more of a food consumer than a food producer, but as a shoe store owner, I could tell you where the shoes I sold were from. It was required. My dad used to travel on the road and sell some shoes. They were Ball-Band rubber footwear. There was a little dispute that came up at one point in time on that because they had to be labeled if they were made in the United States, and other countries were not allowed to use that label. But in Japan, they started another little town, and they named it Usa, U-S-A with no dots after the letters. Then they could say their boots were made in USA, which looked like U.S.A. Other people are jealous of the labeling that we have. We require that kind of labeling so our consumers know where their shoes or boots or shirts or hats--things that don't hurt them nearly as much as what goes inside their body--are from. As a father, I could tell you where the clothes I bought for my children were made. I have to say, I would rather have known more about what I was putting into my growing kids than what I was putting on my growing kids. It is really simple. Artists sign their work, authors pen their books with pride, and American ranchers and farmers want to sign their work, too. They want consumers to know they are proud of what they have produced. They are convinced the people of this country want U.S. beef, U.S. pork, and U.S. lamb. Although I appreciate the work done by this conference on other important provisions for agriculture, and I appreciate the work they did on some of the issues that have already been mentioned, because of this critical issue to a huge industry in my State, I will be voting against final passage. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the trip diary of Dr. John Arnold on behalf of the Hurricane Katrina Farmworkers Disaster Relief Effort.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, together with Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Burns, I am pleased today to introduce ``The Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2005.'' This is a bipartisan effort aimed at relieving the worsening crisis of cost and coverage in America's health insurance system. As I speak today, we are nearing almost five years of double-digit growth in health insurance premiums--increases that have repeatedly exceeded more than five times the rate of inflation. Since 2000, for example, group premiums for family coverage have grown nearly 60 percent, compared to an underlying inflation rate of 9.7 percent over the same period. Those hardest hit are America's small businesses and those individuals outside of employer-provided insurance. These are the ones with the least market leverage and the weakest ability to pool risk. Already, among the very smallest of our businesses, those with fewer than 10 employees, only 52 percent offer coverage to their employees. As a former small business owner, I understand the difficulties these employers face when trying to provide health insurance for their employees. A constituent of mine, Mitchell Blake of Jackson, WY recently told me his story, and it illustrates what is happening to thousands of small businesses across America. Mr. Blake owns a small architecture firm with eight employees. He believes, like so many small business owners across America, that providing insurance for his employees not only promotes a healthy workforce but is simply the right thing to do. In the nine years since his firm opened, the deductibles for employees' health insurance quadrupled, co-pays rose by more than 35 percent, and monthly premiums grew by 20 percent. Since 2001, the company's profits have dropped by nearly one-third, due in large part to providing health insurance coverage. I am realistic. The biggest drivers of health care costs are ones that defy short-term solutions. These include advances in costly medical treatments, Americans' continuing appetite for such treatments, lack of transparency in pricing, and an outdated third-party payment system that insulates consumers from seeing the true cost of care they receive. Addressing these deep problems in a fundamental way will require years of effort and a great deal of political will. And yet, like most members in this body, I am hearing an ever-growing chorus of concern from my constituents about health insurance--and most especially from small businesses. America's families and small businesses don't want us to wait for the perfect solution or the perfect moment. They need real help, and they need it now. Recognizing this increasing concern, and as the new Chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I have made it a priority in recent months to seek the counsel of stakeholders, citizens, experts, and fellow members of Congress on how we might come together on a package of health insurance reforms we can realistically hope to enact in this Congress. The most well known proposal now on the table is the approach known as association health plans, or AHPs. Under this proposal, which was introduced in this Congress by Senators Snowe and Talent, qualifying trade associations would be permitted to band together their members for purposes of offering health coverage. Association health plans hold significant promise--particularly in the pooling of risk, economies of scale, and market clout they could lend to thousands of small businesses. At the same time, however, the AHP bills in their current form may also go too far in allowing some association plans to play by a separate set of rules than those governing the rest of the small group insurance marketplace--thereby tempting adverse selection and market disruption. Another concern is the fact that the current AHP proposals would shift primary oversight over many association plans away from the states and move it to the federal government. Regrettably, debate over these AHP pros and cons has hardened into a political and stakeholder stalemate--a stalemate that has helped block constructive action on new health insurance reform for nearly a decade. It is time we broke this logjam and moved forward. Toward this end, I sincerely appreciate the hard work of Senators Snowe and Talent and other AHP proponents in working with me on possible compromise approaches. And similarly, I am encouraged by what appears to be a growing pragmatic spirit among traditional AHP critics. The legislation we are introducing today is a compromise approach. This legislation blends a modified version of the current Snowe/ Talent AHP legislation with several additional reform initiatives applicable not just to association plans, but also to the wider health insurance marketplace. It is built around several fundamental principles, including: 1. giving associations a meaningful role, but on a level playing field; 2. streamlining the current hodgepodge of varying State regulation; 3. preserving the primary role of the States in health insurance oversight and consumer protection; 4. making lower-cost health plan options available; and 5. achieving meaningful reform without a big price tag that could cloud prospects for passage. With regard to association-based health plans, this bill preserves most of what is known as the ``fully insured'' component of the current AHP bill. That is, like the current AHP bill, my legislation would allow associations to independently pool their members for purposes of buying health coverage, thereby giving them needed strength in numbers and bargaining power. Unlike the current AHP bill, however, this legislation does not include the much more controversial option for associations to self- insure. Primary regulatory oversight of coverage issued to associations would remain at the state level and would not be transferred to Federal control. Although far from perfect, our state insurance commissions are much closer to the real problems confronted by purchasers of insurance in their communities than would be a Federal agency in Washington. Like the current AHP bill, this legislation would enable associations to take advantage of more streamlined rules in the areas of benefit design and rating. In an important departure from the current AHP bill, however, this greater streamlining would be made available not just to associations, but also to other purchasers of insurance. This adjustment will go a long way toward easing critics' fears that the current AHP bill would create an unlevel playing field and market disruption. In short, association-based plans should have the opportunity to harness the advantage of independent pooling and play a commercially meaningful role in the coverage marketplace. However, the coverage offered to association members should be subject to underlying regulatory and consumer protection requirements substantially comparable to those applicable to other entities offering similar coverage. In addition to addressing coverage offered through associations, the legislation we are introducing today also makes several very important improvements in the health insurance marketplace as a whole. For example, this legislation would permit issuers of coverage, both to associations and others, to offer lower-cost health plans free from some, though not all, of the current state benefit mandates that have proliferated over the past decade. Under this bill, those mandates that are currently in place in at least 45 States would continue in effect, but carriers would be permitted to offer plans that do not include other mandated benefits. The intent of this provision is not only to enable the offering of more affordable plan options, but also to make it easier for carriers to offer coverage on a multi-state basis and in more markets. This legislation would also set in motion a process to create greater harmonization in the current costly and competition-inhibiting hodgepodge of varying State health insurance regulation. However, even as it moves the system to greater uniformity in the rules applied, this approach would also carefully retain the current structure of State-based oversight and administration of insurance. This harmonization approach is patterned in general terms after the process used in the early 1990s to achieve greater stability in the Medicare supplemental, Medigap, market. The bill would establish a harmonization commission under the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop harmonized standards for health insurance regulation. The commission would work in close consultation with the NAIC and the States, and would consist of members representing a full range of perspectives and stakeholders. Upon issuance of model standards by the commission and their certification by the Secretary, the States would have two years to adopt them. If a state did not adopt the standards within the required timeframe, an insurer, following certain certification requirements, would be permitted to sell insurance in that State following the harmonized Federal rules. I want to take a moment to thank Senator Gregg, my predecessor as chairman of the HELP Committee. It is due in no small part to his efforts in the last Congress that health insurance market harmonization has matured in the policy community as a needed and valuable step. I look forward to working with him to make this and other aspects of this legislation as effective as it can possibly be. It is important to note that responsibility for oversight and management of the insurance market would remain with the States. What would change is that the rules being applied would become more uniform across State lines. This will enable a wider range of plans to be offered, because the offering of insurance on a multi-State basis will become easier. Competition will improve and costs will go down as more plans enter more markets. This bill reflects and incorporates much thoughtful input from those on many sides of this difficult issue. Such input continues even as I speak. Indeed, there are a number of important issues that remain to be worked on as we proceed with consideration of this bill. For example, we will be continuing discussions on how to smoothe the interaction between association-based plans and the individual insurance market. Similarly, work remains to be done in the calibration of transition rules, including with respect to the handling of older blocks of business vis a vis new plan options that will arise under the new system. Another issue deserving of further attention is the handling of the way carriers can become licensed in multiple States, and opportunities for making this process as smooth as possible while maintaining the authority of State insurance commissioners. I am open to suggestions, and I am open to compromise--but I am not open to continued inaction. My intention is for this bill to serve as a foundation for the swift finalization and passage of a health insurance reform package that will deliver real relief to America's small businesses and struggling families. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 1 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the National Park Service's draft management policies, including potential impact of the policies on park operations, park resources, interaction with gateway communities, and solicitation and collection of donations.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 1, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in closed session to receive a briefing to provide an update on the progress of the joint improvised explosive devices (IED) Task Force.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I have no problem.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate, and my least favorite part of being in the Senate is probably the floor debate that we have because it is rhetoric. It is not the substance that we ought to be debating on the Senate floor. What we are talking about right now is an omnibus deficit reduction reconciliation bill, and it has $39 billion worth of savings in it. One can go ahead and talk about other legislation that will come up later and add those in different directions and come up with different numbers, but what we are talking about right now is deficit reduction. We spent a lot of time and a lot of effort to get it that way. Much of it is bipartisan, but we will not hear that kind of discussion on the floor probably. One will from me because I want to give some credit to the people who have worked with me on arriving at the biggest part of this reconciliation package in a very bipartisan way. Senator Kennedy is the ranking member on the HELP committee, and my committee had responsibility for $13.65 billion in spending cuts over 5 years. We not only met that goal, we exceeded that goal. I want to say a little bit about how we did it. We did it in several areas. One of them is higher education. We provided more for kids going to college while we also provided savings. In the pensions area, we reduced potential outlays, and that saves money. In the area of FDIC reform, we reduced outlays so that we had savings so that we could provide for insurance for people at their retirement time that will aid communities. I will talk about all of that as we go along. I would like to begin by commending Leader Frist and Chairman Gregg for keeping the budget reconciliation process on track this year. Our shared commitment to meaningful deficit reduction is the reason that this package is on the floor this week. The omnibus deficit reduction reconciliation bill of 2005, which is S. 1932, is an ambitious step toward meaningful deficit reduction. The budget agreement that Congress approved in April requires eight authorizing committees to produce $34.7 billion in spending cuts. As chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, that is a big bite of the apple, but it is not when it comes to the budget spending. My committee received the largest reconciliation instruction. It was $13.65 billion in spending cuts over 5 years. That is nearly 40 percent of the overall target. I am pleased to report that we exceeded that target and reported legislation with a net savings of $16.4 billion over 5 years. That is an additional $2.75 billion beyond HELP's reconciliation target. So there is a significant amount of extra savings in the health, education, labor, and pensions component of this package, title VII, which I will discuss momentarily. Now, 2 weeks ago, the HELP Committee reported a bipartisan bill that garnered support from four Democrats, in addition to all of the committee Republicans. We achieved this savings in several ways. One was the Higher Education Act reauthorization. It has been held up for some period of time because we are trying to identify proper funding levels, and reform programs so that more people can get more training. This will ultimately lead to students obtaining better skills, resulting in fewer jobs being outsourced. It is not just a college age situation. It is a college age-to-retirement situation and it includes careers. We addressed that separately in the Workforce Investment Act reauthorization. That separate bill passed 20 to 0 in the committee. So it was unanimous and unanimously bipartisan. I also mentioned that the HELP Committee passed a bipartisan pension bill that garnered support from both sides of the aisle, but it was not unanimous. I have to explain why. We also have to solve the pension problem in this country so that people who have earned pensions get the pensions. We have worked on a comprehensive pension package. In fact, we passed a comprehensive pension package in the HELP committee and then we merged it with a comprehensive pension reform bill from the Finance Committee. We have to go through the process of getting that bill through on the floor and then conferencing it with the House who have yet a third version of the bill. I am hoping that we can do that full package that way. But in that part of the process, when we were doing that bill as a stand-alone bill, there was one section in there that dealt with some hybrid forms of pension plans. I had one person on one side of the aisle who did not think we had gone far enough and one person on the other side of the aisle who thought we had gone too far. So we had two dissenting votes on that whole package. When we take the pension reconciliation to the floor, as we are doing right now, we are not able to do the comprehensive pension package that we had reported previously. We are limited to reducing the outlays, which means increasing the fees. That would not be my preference for the way to go. There is a little provision in there that says that if we pass a complete reform, it will supersede what we are doing in reconciliation. I am assuming, and am pretty sure, the dissenting votes that we had when we worked the reconciliation package out of committee, which was both a combination of the education package and the pensions package, that the dissension was over having to raise fees in the pension part of the package. Otherwise, if it had been, again, just a stand-alone on the education part, I am pretty sure we would have had a unanimous, bipartisan vote. But we did have people from both sides of the aisle, in what I consider to be fairly significant numbers, supporting this. Writing this package has been a challenging process because it has required months of bipartisan negotiations. Spending reconciliation bills involve tough choices, about which programs to responsibly reform and how to reinvest subsequent savings, while still meeting deficit reduction goals. I am pleased about the role that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has played in this process. I would like to briefly walk through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions title of the reconciliation bill. The HELP Committee's title has two components, as I mentioned, one dealing with higher education, the other with pensions. The higher education provisions in the reconciliation legislation are similar to the comprehensive higher education reauthorization bill that the HELP Committee agreed to unanimously in September, as I mentioned. In addition to exceeding our reconciliation target, the title VII of the legislation provides additional benefits to students and strengthens access to higher education. Now, I have to say that one of the ways that we worked enthusiastically on doing this was when we were doing the budget process and outlining how much had to be saved by the various parts. First, in the pension area, we worked hard to come up with a reasonable number that could happen without businesses being put out of business. We wanted to do it so that people would be encouraged to continue pensions. I think that we have done that. In the education portion, I asked the chairman of the Budget Committee if we could not work a little deal where if we saved more than the $7 billion that we were required under the budget act to save, if we could not have half of what we saved, with it really not starting until we got to the $7 billion. We had to get to $7 billion but if we got to $14 billion we would get half. That gave us some incentive to look at what is actually happening in the higher education area and see ways that we could save. I appreciate the enthusiastic participation of everybody on the committee and their staff because that is what allows these things to happen. I have to tell you that the largest part of this, of course, comes from ending some corporate subsidies. Title VII of the reconciliation bill reduces the deficit by $9.8 billion over 5 years. That is an additional $2.8 billion beyond the committee's $7 billion higher education savings target. This also provides over $8 billion in increased grant assistance for low- and middle-income students, including $2.25 billion targeted to juniors and seniors in college majoring in math and science subjects or foreign language critical to national security. That is a junior-senior package for low- and middle-income students that will, I hope, bridge the gap that we are beginning to have with China and India on having people who are technically capable of keeping our economy growing. Again, I want to emphasize that is $8 billion of increased grant assistance for low- and middle-income students. I don't think I used the word ``rich'' students in there. Did I? No, low- and middle-income students with a special target of math, science, and foreign languages critical to national security. We have to do something in this country to launch a greater interest in math and science if we are going to maintain the economic edge that we have at the present time. Our kids have to realize there is competition out there, that there are people who want their jobs, that there are people out there who want to be the employer of Americans, not the employee of Americans. We have the $8 billion in increased grant assistance for low- and middle-income students. It also reduces borrower origination fees which will benefit the students who finance some or part of their education through loans. That is a cost of $1 billion. It incorporates language to provide financial relief to students impacted by Hurricane Katrina, including cancelling loans disbursed in the 2005-2006 academic year to students in impacted areas. That is a cost of $105 million. Those are loans that could be difficult to use in light of the hurricane. But it takes care of that part. We have an interest in doing some other things and need to do some other things with it yet. But that is an outline of how cumulatively the higher education reforms save approximately a net of $9.8 billion, bringing the total deficit reduction in the package to $16.4 billion over 5 years. I want to emphasize that those things are paid for that we talk about there. The second component of the HELP Committee title addresses premiums to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC. The understanding when the resolution was adopted in April was that an additional $6.65 billion in deficit reduction would be achieved through pension reforms. It continues to be my hope that these savings can be accomplished in a bipartisan fashion outside of reconciliation. In reconciliation, however, we are in a position to only raise the PBGC premium instead of also addressing the funding rule that will ultimately determine plan solvency. In other words, this could drive more people into bankruptcy. But it is the best that we can do under the rules we have under budget reconciliation. This legislation makes three changes to the current law that will generate approximately $6.7 billion in savings over 5 years. Here is how it does it. It first increases the flat-rate premium paid by all single-employer plans, and it increases it from $19 to $46.75 per participant and indexes the increase to wage inflation. Next, it raises the participant premium for multi-employer plans from $2.60 to $8 immediately, and likewise indexes the increase to wage inflation. Third, it includes a new premium requiring companies to terminate their defined benefit plans through bankruptcy to pay a premium of $1,250 per participant for 3 years but only after the company successfully emerges from bankruptcy. Why did we do that third part? That should be a part of coming out of bankruptcy--to repay some of the money that had to be potentially paid out, and paid out during the time the company was going through bankruptcy. But if we don't do that third part, what we were faced with doing was going with the singly-employer plan, flat-rate premium going from $19 to $59. We were able to keep it back at $46.75. Under the comprehensive bill, again, which I prefer to do, but it is not an option at this point in time, that would raise the premium to only $30 per participant. That is still a pretty significant rate, $19 to $30 per participant. And the reconciliation measure before us raises the premium to $46.75 per participant. There are savings under the comprehensive reform, but this meets the requirements of getting to that $6.7 billion with the assurance that PBGC will be able to meet its payments as people's retirements come up who have been relegated to that system. The short answer to why the premium was raised so high is we do not have as many legislative options in reconciliation as we have outside reconciliation. But it has to be done. This is one of the two to get it done. None of us want this premium ultimately to be enacted into law. Adopting a comprehensive reform will solve that problem. But for now, the premium of $46.75 is the ``least bad'' option that we face. To be clear that this premium label will be reduced, the bill language includes a special rule that the premiums contained in the reconciliation bill shall not go into effect if comprehensive pension reforms that accomplish the same savings are enacted before the end of this year. It is a pretty tight timeline. I would also like to address some of the additional titles in the reconciliation package. Two weeks ago, the Senate Banking Committee passed a budget resolution package that included S. 1562, the Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2005. That is a bill that I introduced this year along with Senators Johnson, Hagel, and Allard. S. 1562 gained the support of a wide majority of Republicans and Democrats on the Banking Committee before the markup. It is also supported by the Department of the Treasury and the FDIC. I believe passing S. 1562 is crucial for the healthy operations of our Nation's banks and credit unions. The current FDIC system is in desperate need of improvement. Over the past 20 years, deposit insurance has been eroded by inflation and growing deposits falling to the dangerously low levels we have today. S. 1562 would give the FDIC statutory authority to make the deposit insurance fund healthy again, and in a way that accounts for the riskiness of each of the institutions it insures. This bill is very important to keep the retirement funds and savings of Americans safe. In our rural towns and communities, depositors depend upon their local credit union or their local bank to deposit their hard-earned money. These financial institutions, in turn, lend money to local businesses and invest in their communities. This relationship benefits the customer, the institution, and the community. My bill would ensure that this relationship can continue into the future, adapting to changing economic cycles or unexpected crises. I am also pleased the Senate Energy Committee included provisions to meet its budget reconciliation target that allows for responsible exploration in ANWR. With the energy crises our Nation faces, it is imperative that we make the most of our domestic supply. Wyoming is contributing dramatically to that supply but nothing like what could be done with ANWR. ANWR is a world-class resource, and with proper protections in place--and there are proper protections--we can recover the resource without damaging the area. While the ANWR provisions will help our Nation's energy crisis, another rumored provision threatens to further burden consumers and burden an important industry in my State. Fortunately, the Judiciary Committee did not include a tax on explosives to meet their reconciliation goal. Such a tax would have been extremely costly to the mining industry and, in my view, did not make sense. The committee's decision to use other methods to meet their reconciliation number ensures that in this energy crisis consumers are not forced to pay even more to heat their homes and keep on the lights. I want to reiterate just a little bit that in this budget reconciliation package the biggest part of the heavy lifting comes from Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We worked in a bipartisan way to provide for higher education and additional benefits for low- and middle-income students, and for juniors and seniors in that low- and middle-income situation to provide even more, if they will do math and science to meet some critical needs for their country. We have taken care of pensions. There are some important things in this bill that should not be confused with other bills or other times. There are some very significant things that can happen if we can get this done. They can happen immediately for many of our college students. I will work as much as possible to make sure that any savings that come from education go to education. I really think that is the way it has to be. That is the principle under which my committee worked to make sure that we had the incentive for savings. In closing, I look forward to working with my colleagues this week and in conference to complete work on this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I can offer an amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I was going to offer an amendment Senator Kennedy will want to speak on. We are working here together.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Alexander, and Senator Dodd, in offering an amendment to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. As chairman of the committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, my committee received the largest reconciliation instruction of $13.65 billion in spending cuts over 5 years. That is nearly 40 percent of the overall target. I am pleased to report that we exceeded that target, and reported legislation that will net $16.4 billion over 5 years. That is an additional $2.75 billion beyond HELP's reconciliation target. So there is a significant amount of extra savings in HELP's component of this package--Title VII--which this amendment addresses. This amendment ensures that extra savings generated from education will be returned to education. Let me be clear, additional savings from students should be returned to students, just as they are in the other part of the reconciliation bill. The amendment provides additional relief for students enrolled in postsecondary education who take out Federal student loans to pay for their education expenses. This amendment also addresses the elementary and secondary education challenges faced by the 372,000 schoolchildren displaced by Hurricane Katrina, their families, and the schools that opened their doors to accommodate the thousands of displaced students. I congratulate Senator Alexander for his tremendous work in this area. He is in charge of the subcommittee that handles this area and did a tremendous job of pulling together different people, different opinions, different situations in coming up with a very comprehensive amendment that would solve those issues. I have to say, he did that in conjunction with Senators Kennedy and Dodd and myself. It was a very bipartisan effort. There are some very sticky issues in this area that needed to be dealt with, and were dealt with, and it will take care of a significant body of students that need some significant help to make sure they get their education this year. We do not want kids in K through 12 out of school. We want them in school. And when we are forcing them on to other schools, we want to make sure that is taken care of, too. First, I will discuss the additional relief for students enrolled in postsecondary education. The Higher Education Act amendments that are included in S. 1932 represent a significant boost in need-based grant aid for our neediest postsecondary students. Also included is a provision to relieve the fees that students pay to borrow under the Federal student loan programs. The amendment I am offering today provides significant benefits to student borrowers, and makes Federal student loans more affordable. The amendment would reduce even further those origination fees for postsecondary students. The current fee of 3 percent would be reduced to 2 percent. Origination fees were originally applied to help reduce Federal spending on the guaranteed student loan program. It is time that students stop paying these fees to ensure the program's solvency. Reducing these fees for students will save dependent students up to $500 dollars and will save independent and graduate students even more. The average dependent student borrowing under the Federal Family Education Loan program or the Direct Loan program currently pays several hundred dollars in origination fees. Since the majority of students capitalize these fees, they will also pay interest on these fees for 10 years or more. Independent students could pay twice as much. Over the life of the student's loan, these fees and the interest paid on them can add up to several thousand dollars, and they do not help students pay for tuition. These fees do not make any difference on the ability of students to afford college, and in many cases they only represent additional expenses. This amendment begins to phase out these fees. At the 6.8 percent interest rate in the underlying higher education bill, this change could save dependent students nearly $500 over the life of their loans. Over $125 of that would be interest payments. With this amendment, independent students could save more than $1,000 and graduate students would save even more. This amendment also addresses the elementary and secondary education challenges faced by the 372,000 schoolchildren displaced by Hurricane Katrina, their families, and the schools that opened their doors to accommodate them. This amendment includes provisions from the Hurricane Katrina Elementary and Secondary Education Recovery Act, which is S. 1904, a bipartisan compromise that accomplishes the common goal of providing relief to support the instruction and services that the students displaced by this terrible storm need in order to continue their education, regardless of whether it is in a public or nonpublic school. Over 300,000 students and their families were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Their lives were disrupted, and they have no sense of when they will be able to return to their home communities. With this amendment we will be providing one-time, temporary, emergency aid on behalf of these students. All of us can agree that these displaced students deserve help to continue their education under these extraordinary circumstances caused by a disaster of unprecedented scope. According to the U.S. Department of Education, schools in 49 States and the District of Columbia have opened their doors to help students displaced by this storm. Nine States have received more than 1,000 displaced students. Texas has enrolled as many as 60,000 students. The Houston independent school district alone enrolled 4,700 displaced students, hired 180 new teachers, added 37 new bus route, and ordered about 10,000 new textbooks to accommodate them. These statistics represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of schools that have accepted displaced students from the Gulf States. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of these students were attending nonpublic schools, and in their new communities the nonpublic schools have opened their doors to these students. These States and schools need realistic, fiscally responsible assistance from the Congress to accommodate the students they have taken into their education system. This amendment will provide the relief necessary to support the instruction and other school services the displaced students need regardless of the school they are attending. Students will get the education services they need so that they can return as quickly as possible to their home school district without losing educational ground at a time when their lives have been turned upside down. Our top concern was to make sure that all displaced students continued their education. School provides a sense of routine that is important in assuring students that things will return to normal. School provides them with access to a support system of friends and teachers, which is invaluable as they and their families continue to come to grips with the aftereffects of the storm. Some students are already returning home as their schools reopen, but severe problems of displacement do remain. Many schools will remain closed for the entire school year. This amendment does not make permanent changes to Federal education laws. It is a one-time, temporary solution that sets aside ideological differences to make sure children are not harmed unnecessarily by the impact of this unprecedented disaster. Developing this language was a difficult task, as we have limited resources, but we are faced with an almost unlimited need. It provides a comprehensive approach to address the needs of the hundreds of thousands of students who have been displaced. It focuses on the immediate needs of students with the expectation that they will return home to their local school. Let me describe what this amendment does. First and foremost, it provides support for all displaced students, ensures accountability, and is fiscally responsible. Children displaced by this storm do not have the resources of their home communities to rely on for friends, activities, learning opportunities, and stability. These resources will assist students in their adjustment to new schools, new materials and standards, new classmates, and new teachers. The amendment provides for a restart fund for special school reopening grants for school districts directly affected by the hurricane. These grants are meant to supplement FEMA funding to ensure the effective use of Federal funds. They can be used to repurchase textbooks and instructional materials, establish temporary facilities while repairs are being made, help reestablish the data that was destroyed, and pay salaries of teachers and other personnel who are working to reopen these schools. The largest portion of the funding under this amendment is focused on easing the temporary transition of students into new schools, both public and nonpublic, through one-time emergency aid. These funds will be used to help defray the additional costs incurred as a result of enrolling displaced students, and they can be used for purposes such as supporting basic instruction, purchasing educational materials and supplies, and helping schools temporarily expand facilities to relieve overcrowding. It provides assistance to schools in a nonideological and responsible way. It is based on the number of students, public and nonpublic, reported by local school districts to the State. The funding flows through regular channels to local school districts and accounts established on behalf of students attending nonpublic schools. The amendment maintains public control of public money to ensure accountability. Quarterly payments are made based on the head count of the displaced students temporarily enrolled in schools, with a maximum amount of $6,000--$7,500 for students with disabilities--per displaced students, or the cost of tuition, fees and transportation for nonpublic students, for the four payments. States apply for these funds and are required to establish income eligibility criteria for aid on behalf of students in nonpublic schools. Nonpublic schools must waive or reimburse tuition in order for accounts to be established for their displaced students. Parents of displaced students must clearly make the choice for their child to attend a nonpublic school, and the nonpublic school must attest to the use of funds and the numbers of displaced students in attendance. Nonpublic schools shall use funds in secular and neutral ways, not for religious instruction, proselytization, or worship. Displaced children cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their race, color, national origin, religion, disability, or sex. The assistance provided through this amendment is temporary. It sunsets at the end of this school year. This amendment is necessary because of the extraordinary circumstances and the emergency nature of this situation. Through the savings in this reconciliation bill, we have the opportunity not only to authorize programs that will serve the thousands of children affected by Hurricane Katrina, but to defer the costs required to meet their education needs. Investing these funds in this way will meet an immediate need, but education is a longer-term investment in the future of our country and its ability to compete in a global economy. We must focus our efforts on ensuring that the educational needs of the children affected by this unprecedented emergency are addressed, and I believe that this amendment achieves that goal. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and support returning additional education savings to the education needs of our students. I urge my colleagues to support student access to postsecondary education, which is critical to our ability to compete in the global marketplace. I can think over no better investment in the future of our students, businesses and Nation. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.