A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the contribution limits for health savings accounts, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the growing success of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and legislation I have introduced to expand Health Savings Accounts.

In a positive action, Congress created Health Savings Accounts as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). Health Savings Accounts are an alternative to traditional health insurance--a savings product that offers a different and attractive way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable an individual to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

An individual must have coverage under an HSA qualified health plan to open and contribute to an HSA. HSA qualified health plan premiums generally costs less than traditional health care coverage. Therefore, an individual can put the money he or she saves on insurance into a personal Health Savings Account.

I've always described myself as a common sense Jeffersonian conservative, which means I trust free people and free enterprise more than a meddlesome, burdensome government and that's why I'm such a strong advocate for Health Savings Accounts. Individuals own and control the money in their HSAs. Unlike a Flexible Spending Account, funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA. There are no ``use it or lose it'' rules for HSAs. HSAs can become, over time, a strong, affordable health insurance product providing a savings ``nest egg'' for health care expenses.

In addition, HSAs allow individuals to make decisions on how to spend their money without relying on a third party. More specifically, the individual makes decisions about how much. money he or she wants to put into the account, whether to save for future medical expenses, or pay expenses that health insurance plans may not cover.

The individual also decides what types of investments to make with the money in the account that will allow the account appreciate and grow in value. I want to make clear right here that the individual does not have to invest their money if he or she doesn't want to. This is only an option. The bottom line is that Health Savings Accounts give people the freedom to make the health care choices that best fit their needs and that best represent Mr. Jefferson's ideals and my own.

Now, there are critics of health savings accounts. However, there is convincing evidence that HSAs have proven effective in controlling health care costs and providing an affordable option for Americans without health Insurance coverage.

Critics who claim that rich people gain most from the tax breaks of HSAs should look at the facts. Of the 3 million Americans who have enrolled in HSA plans, 32 percent were previously uninsured, and the uninsured are not typically wealthy. Critics suggest HSAs will drive up the cost of premiums. However, a recently released study from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions showed HSA qualified plans had a 2.8 percent annual premium increase, compared to 8 percent for all other plans. This low rate of increase is another reason HSA qualified plans are affordable to those with lower incomes.

Another common criticism of HSAs is that the tax break benefits are ``too generous.'' But the President's proposal offering both a tax deduction and tax credit for money used to fund HSAs is no more generous than current tax benefits for employer-sponsored health coverage. However, our laws and proposal only level the playing field.

Proponents of HSAs do not pretend that HSAs are going to ``fix'' the entire health care system, although they may go a long way toward doing so with more individual responsibility and opportunity. HSAs are an additional option--one that is affordable and chips away at part of the problem: the millions of uninsured Americans. Individuals need health insurance, especially for costly medical services, not only tax deductions for out-of-pocket spending. It is the combination of two products--the HSA and HSA-qualified health insurance plan--that has allowed over one million previously uninsured Americans to afford real health coverage.

I am very pleased to see the positive results of Health Savings Accounts. But we cannot let this momentum slow down. We must do more to promote HSAs and give individuals more control over their health care needs--and that is why I am here today. I am introducing legislation that would increase the maximum amount individuals can contribute to their HSA.

Under current law, an individual's contributions are limited to the lesser of the amount of the deductible or $2700 for self-only coverage, ($5450 for family coverage), for 2006. Under this proposal, a person could contribute--without paying income or payroll taxes on the contribution--up to the plan's out-of-pocket maximum, which is higher than the deductible. So for an individual, the maximum out-of-pocket for 2006 cannot exceed $5250 or $10500 for a family. It is important to note though, that each HSA qualified health plan sets their own limit on out of pocket expenses, therefore, for an individual their out-of- pocket expenses may be lower than maximum $5250 but more than the current limit of $2700. Nevertheless, this legislation allows individuals to save more money for their current and future health care needs and I am proud to be introducing it.

Moreover, this proposal will remove the tax bias against consumer- directed

health plans. Today, the tax code subsidizes health care purchased through insurance but generally does not subsidize health care paid out-of-pocket. This encourages excessive reliance on insurance for even predictable, non-catastrophic care, which in turn reduces consumer sensitivity to the cost of health care. My proposal would help improve the efficiency and slow the growth of our nation's health care spending.

Studies estimate that the average retiree will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings for out-of-pocket old-age health costs. HSAs provide strong tax incentives to encourage such savings. On a side note, I have introduced legislation, the Long-Term Care Act that compliments this HSA proposal. Under the Long-Term Care Act, we would allow individuals to use their 401(k) savings to pay for long-term care insurance. Both proposals provide commonsense approaches that will encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and reduce individuals' reliance on programs such as Medicaid.

HSAs have proven to be an effective health cost containment tool. While there is a cost to the federal government associated with the tax benefit portion of HSA plans, we must weigh that cost against the cost of doing nothing and allowing cost shifting to those with insurance. Our health care system needs to switch to a preventive care system, which will keep future health care costs down rather than our current costly reactionary system. If we continue down our current path and make no significant changes to our health care system, the unfunded liability of entitlement spending will reach $26 trillion by the year 2030, consuming the entire federal budget. We're at a crucial point, and I believe my legislation, and HSAs in general, offer a step in the right direction for personal responsibility in fostering affordable health care and savings.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the growing success of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and legislation I have introduced to expand Health Savings Accounts.

In a positive action, Congress created Health Savings Accounts as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). Health Savings Accounts are an alternative to traditional health insurance--a savings product that offers a different and attractive way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable an individual to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

An individual must have coverage under an HSA qualified health plan to open and contribute to an HSA. HSA qualified health plan premiums generally costs less than traditional health care coverage. Therefore, an individual can put the money he or she saves on insurance into a personal Health Savings Account.

I've always described myself as a common sense Jeffersonian conservative, which means I trust free people and free enterprise more than a meddlesome, burdensome government and that's why I'm such a strong advocate for Health Savings Accounts. Individuals own and control the money in their HSAs. Unlike a Flexible Spending Account, funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA. There are no ``use it or lose it'' rules for HSAs. HSAs can become, over time, a strong, affordable health insurance product providing a savings ``nest egg'' for health care expenses.

In addition, HSAs allow individuals to make decisions on how to spend their money without relying on a third party. More specifically, the individual makes decisions about how much. money he or she wants to put into the account, whether to save for future medical expenses, or pay expenses that health insurance plans may not cover.

The individual also decides what types of investments to make with the money in the account that will allow the account appreciate and grow in value. I want to make clear right here that the individual does not have to invest their money if he or she doesn't want to. This is only an option. The bottom line is that Health Savings Accounts give people the freedom to make the health care choices that best fit their needs and that best represent Mr. Jefferson's ideals and my own.

Now, there are critics of health savings accounts. However, there is convincing evidence that HSAs have proven effective in controlling health care costs and providing an affordable option for Americans without health Insurance coverage.

Critics who claim that rich people gain most from the tax breaks of HSAs should look at the facts. Of the 3 million Americans who have enrolled in HSA plans, 32 percent were previously uninsured, and the uninsured are not typically wealthy. Critics suggest HSAs will drive up the cost of premiums. However, a recently released study from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions showed HSA qualified plans had a 2.8 percent annual premium increase, compared to 8 percent for all other plans. This low rate of increase is another reason HSA qualified plans are affordable to those with lower incomes.

Another common criticism of HSAs is that the tax break benefits are ``too generous.'' But the President's proposal offering both a tax deduction and tax credit for money used to fund HSAs is no more generous than current tax benefits for employer-sponsored health coverage. However, our laws and proposal only level the playing field.

Proponents of HSAs do not pretend that HSAs are going to ``fix'' the entire health care system, although they may go a long way toward doing so with more individual responsibility and opportunity. HSAs are an additional option--one that is affordable and chips away at part of the problem: the millions of uninsured Americans. Individuals need health insurance, especially for costly medical services, not only tax deductions for out-of-pocket spending. It is the combination of two products--the HSA and HSA-qualified health insurance plan--that has allowed over one million previously uninsured Americans to afford real health coverage.

I am very pleased to see the positive results of Health Savings Accounts. But we cannot let this momentum slow down. We must do more to promote HSAs and give individuals more control over their health care needs--and that is why I am here today. I am introducing legislation that would increase the maximum amount individuals can contribute to their HSA.

Under current law, an individual's contributions are limited to the lesser of the amount of the deductible or $2700 for self-only coverage, ($5450 for family coverage), for 2006. Under this proposal, a person could contribute--without paying income or payroll taxes on the contribution--up to the plan's out-of-pocket maximum, which is higher than the deductible. So for an individual, the maximum out-of-pocket for 2006 cannot exceed $5250 or $10500 for a family. It is important to note though, that each HSA qualified health plan sets their own limit on out of pocket expenses, therefore, for an individual their out-of- pocket expenses may be lower than maximum $5250 but more than the current limit of $2700. Nevertheless, this legislation allows individuals to save more money for their current and future health care needs and I am proud to be introducing it.

Moreover, this proposal will remove the tax bias against consumer- directed

health plans. Today, the tax code subsidizes health care purchased through insurance but generally does not subsidize health care paid out-of-pocket. This encourages excessive reliance on insurance for even predictable, non-catastrophic care, which in turn reduces consumer sensitivity to the cost of health care. My proposal would help improve the efficiency and slow the growth of our nation's health care spending.

Studies estimate that the average retiree will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings for out-of-pocket old-age health costs. HSAs provide strong tax incentives to encourage such savings. On a side note, I have introduced legislation, the Long-Term Care Act that compliments this HSA proposal. Under the Long-Term Care Act, we would allow individuals to use their 401(k) savings to pay for long-term care insurance. Both proposals provide commonsense approaches that will encourage individuals to plan for their future health care needs and reduce individuals' reliance on programs such as Medicaid.

HSAs have proven to be an effective health cost containment tool. While there is a cost to the federal government associated with the tax benefit portion of HSA plans, we must weigh that cost against the cost of doing nothing and allowing cost shifting to those with insurance. Our health care system needs to switch to a preventive care system, which will keep future health care costs down rather than our current costly reactionary system. If we continue down our current path and make no significant changes to our health care system, the unfunded liability of entitlement spending will reach $26 trillion by the year 2030, consuming the entire federal budget. We're at a crucial point, and I believe my legislation, and HSAs in general, offer a step in the right direction for personal responsibility in fostering affordable health care and savings.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act.

We must honor our U.S. soldiers who died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them.

Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans.

I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the Federal Government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107th Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill.

That is why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation.

In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $3,713, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level.

In 1973, the non-service connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the non- service connected benefit from $300 to $1,135, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level.

In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 3 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $670, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level.

Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans will not have to fight this fight again.

This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Employment and Training Act of 2006. I am joined in this effort by Senator Pryor. This important legislation will provide expanded benefits for our brave men and women returning from service in the Global War on Terror, while also providing needed workers to growing sectors of our economy.

Under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, the Veterans' Administration currently provides accelerated benefits to assist our service men and women in transitioning to the civilian job market. Through this program, the VA makes short-term, high-cost training programs more attractive to veterans by paying benefits in a lump sum, and by covering up to 60 percent of the cost of some educational programs. However, this program is now only available to men and women who seek training in high-tech programs.

In order to provide this benefit to more of our brave men and women in the armed forces, the Veterans' Employment and Training Act will expand eligibility for accelerated benefits to include industry sectors identified by the Department of Labor as likely to add large numbers of new jobs or require new job training skills in the coming years. These sectors include construction, hospitality, financial services, energy, homeland security, health care, and transportation.

A number of these sectors face critical shortages of employees now or in the near future and are anxious to attract veterans to their professions. The trucking industry, for example, needs an additional 20,000 drivers today and expects to face a driver shortage of 110,000 drivers by 2014. The modest change that I am proposing today will help to provide needed workers to these and other industries.

But more importantly, we must remember the great sacrifices made by those in the Armed Forces. For many of these brave individuals, the transition from military service to civilian life is not an easy one. It is particularly difficult for veterans between the ages of 20 and 24, who currently have an unemployment rate of over 15 percent--nearly double the rate of non-veterans in the same age group. This is simply unacceptable!

We have an obligation to make sure that these individuals are not forgotten when they return from service. One step we can take now is to ensure that those who serve have access to every educational opportunity possible. By expanding eligibility for accelerated G.I. Bill benefits, we will give many of these veterans a new opportunity to get training and find work in some of the fastest growing sectors of our economy.

I urge the Senate to act soon to pass this legislation. We owe it to the men and women of the Armed Forces to act quickly to provide them with this expanded benefit.

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

Mr. President, I stand before my colleagues today to announce the introduction of a bill that will preserve an important resource needed during times of an emergency--free, local, over-the-air radio broadcasting. The Local Emergency Radio Service Preservation Act ensures that terrestrial radio service does not suffer from the entry of subscription-based satellite services into local markets.

The most reliable form of communication today is radio. Oftentimes during natural disasters and other emergencies, many forms of communications become unavailable to the public. Wireless systems can be overloaded with calls. Satellite television service is interrupted by extreme weather conditions. Internet service connections are frequently disconnected. In contrast, over-the-air radio is an ubiquitous form of mass media that is available to nearly every car and household in the nation. The system cannot be overloaded and operates well under extreme weather conditions. Radio has been meeting the demands of local communities for nearly a century and is equipped to continue its service well into the next century.

In 1997 satellite digital audio radio service, SDARS, was licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to provide a national radio programming service. Today satellite

radio companies provide their service to consumers on a subscription basis. The cost of the radio equipment needed to receive the service is reasonable for the enthusiast, but too costly for low income households. For many families, satellite radio is not an option. Instead, these people must rely on traditional over-the-air radio for weather, traffic, news and local information.

Should satellite companies begin to enter into local markets, going against the original spirit of the license agreement, local radio stations would suffer revenue loss. Advertising dollars are the radio broadcast industry's sole source of revenue. The technology exists for satellite companies to deliver local content, including local advertisements. Satellite industry players have publically stated that local advertising dollars could quickly become a new revenue source. This threat to free radio is a threat to the public interest.

The Local Emergency Radio Service Preservation Act eases the threat to radio broadcasting. First the bill prohibits the use of satellite terrestrial repeaters to insert local content into specific local markets. Second, this legislation clarifies that future technologies cannot be used to distribute local satellite programming. Lastly, the act requires the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to conduct a rulemaking on the distribution of region-specific content on a nationwide basis.