A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals eligible for veterans health benefits to contribute to health savings accounts.

Mr. President, as the ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join my colleague and chair, Senator Snowe, in introducing the Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act of 2006. This legislation reauthorizes and strengthens vital small business programs for women entrepreneurs nationwide.

Small businesses are the driving force behind innovation and national economic prosperity in the United States. Employing over 19 million workers, while pumping some $2 trillion into the economy, America's 10.6

million women-owned businesses play an integral role in this endeavor. However, despite their critical contributions to our Nation, women entrepreneurs still face many obstacles in the business world. Without the support and guidance of Women's Business Centers and other women small business ownership programs, which provide necessary tools to ensure the long term success of women-owned firms, many female entrepreneurs would not be able to open their doors and stay in business. Given women-owned businesses' contributions to our society, it is imperative that we continue to advocate on their behalf, and this legislation does just that.

In recent years, the Small Business Administration, SBA, has seen its annual budget repeatedly slashed by the Bush administration--the most out of any other Federal agency. The fiscal year 2007 proposal was no different. Among the various programmatic cuts within the President's fiscal year 2007 budget, technical assistance funding was set at just $104 million--down from his proposals of $108 million in fiscal year 2006 and $111 million in fiscal year 2005. This funding plays a crucial role in the development and sustainability of Women's Business Centers in states across the country. The SBA provides grants from technical assistance funding to help support over 80 Women's Business Centers Nationwide. One such example is the Center for Women and Enterprise, which has served the greater Boston, Worcester, and Providence areas since 1995. In that time, the center has certified over 150 women-owned businesses and served as a catalyst in helping entrepreneurs create over 15,000 new jobs.

More centers such as this ought to be in place in areas spanning the Nation. That is why I made it a priority to author and pass the Women's Business Center Sustainability Act of 1999, to help successful centers remain open and viable in the areas they serve. This bill was signed into law as a means of safeguarding successful centers with proven results by authorizing continued funding for a set time period under sustainability grants. The theory behind this bipartisan legislation was to continue to allow for new centers, but to also ensure that those with a proven track record would continue to be helped. And yet, since its enactment, Senator Snowe and I have had to fight each year to ensure that there is sustainability funding through the passage of numerous temporary extensions and a series of exchanges with the SBA. These centers are vital in equipping women entrepreneurs with the tools they need to succeed in business, and it is unfortunate that this administration has attempted to eliminate sustainability funding since President Bush took office. It is high time that all centers demonstrating proven results year in and year out receive this sustainability funding.

The legislation I am introducing today, guarantees the future of the Women's Business Center Program and bridges it with other SBA-related women's initiatives to ensure there exists a unified and cohesive mission driving the programs forward for women entrepreneurs across the country. In this, the bill not only makes permanent the Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot Program--through the creation of 3-year ``renewal'' grants for centers with sustainability grants, and 4-year ``initial'' grants for new centers across the country--but it also increases the program's authorization levels. Furthermore, our legislation calls for the Office of Women's Business Ownership to make all Women's Business Center grants at $150,000 and to work in consultation with Women's Business Centers whenever making improvements to the program.

Additionally, this legislation calls for a more streamlined approach for the Women's Business Center Program's data collection, grant application, and selection criteria, in an effort to ensure a smooth transition from sustainability to the newly established program. The Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act of 2006 also contains privacy protections for the Women's Business Council, Women's Business Centers, and their small business clients.

The bill's provisions make several minor, yet significant, changes to both the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise, as well as the National Women's Business Council--enabling both entities to serve as a better resource for not only the administration and Congress, but the larger small business community as well. In order to increase and strengthen women business owners' representation in the Federal Government, the bill reestablishes the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise, and creates a Policy Advisory Group to aide the committee's chairperson in the development of policies and programs under this act. It also creates three subcommittees similar to those created under the National Women's Business Council. Additionally, in order to afford the National Women's Business Council more flexibility in its use of funds, the bill gives it cosponsorship authority, and directs it to act as a clearinghouse for historical data.

I would like to remind my colleagues that similar legislation drew wide bipartisan support in the 108th Congress. Despite arriving at a bipartisan Women's Business Center compromise on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, the Republican majority failed to include this compromise in the last SBA reauthorization package. I would like to thank Chair Snowe for her work in addressing the needs of America's female entrepreneurs, and for her steadfast support for this legislation. She is a true advocate for women-owned small businesses.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to allow veterans who use the VA health care system to establish health savings accounts, HSAs. This legislation will increase health insurance options for veterans and their families, provide future options in the choice of health care providers for veterans, and could ultimately allow veterans who are forced to rely on the VA health care system today to choose to receive care from the private health care system in the future.

As my colleagues are aware, current law allows individuals who purchase a high deductible health insurance plan to contribute funds, on behalf of themselves and their family, to a health savings account. Funds are contributed to the HSA on a pretax basis and then can be withdrawn for qualified health care expenses without any tax consequence.

In order for a person's HSA to be in ``good standing'' with the IRS, the individual cannot carry health insurance that provides coverage for any health services prior to reaching the deductible amount of the high deductible plan. Of course, like many government programs, there are exceptions to the rules for certain circumstance. Most notably, a person does not jeopardize an HSA by purchasing long-term care or accident insurance nor is the receipt of workman's compensation coverage disqualified from contributing to an account. Yet the IRS has advised the health insurance industry that VA health care would count as a health insurance plan that provides coverage for health care services prior to reaching the high deductible limit. Therefore, veterans who use VA are not eligible to establish health savings accounts.

At the time this issue was brought to my attention, the argument was limited to the narrow issue of service-connected veterans being denied an opportunity to avail themselves of the tax advantages of an HSA simply because they suffered an injury related to their service in the military and the government was providing care for that injury. Of course, that seemed outrageous to me. Like any employer, the Government has an obligation to provide treatment for injuries sustained while military personal are serving our country. And if workman's comp is a current exemption, why not VA care?

So, I set out to draft a bill to allow service-connected veterans who use VA for service-connected treatment to establish HSAs. But, the more I considered the arguments for allowing those who use VA for service- connected conditions to have HSAs, the more I realized that the arguments applied just as strongly to all VA patients. I would like to take a moment to explain my arguments.

First, the current law unfairly affects families of veterans when the veteran is the sole provider of income for the family. As everyone knows, VA is not a family health care provider except in the extreme case of a permanently disabled service-connected veteran. Therefore if a veteran--even a service-connected veteran--uses the VA health care system, current law does not even allow that veteran to contribute money on behalf of his family to an HSA. What good does that do? Why would we prohibit a veteran from providing health coverage to his or her family? In my opinion, that does neither the veteran nor his or her family any good. It is simply a well-intention policy when applied to HSAs, with a harmful, unintended consequence as applied to veterans.

Second, under current law VA is permitted to bill insurance carriers for the treatment of nonservice connected conditions. Further, many veterans are required to pay copayments to VA in order to receive that same care. So, veterans have out-of-pocket medical expenses and VA can bill their insurance provider. Yet we have a policy that disallows the establishment of a tax free account to pay for those medical expenses and--even worse--provides a disincentive for the veterans to buy an insurance policy that VA could one day bill. Again, I understand the genesis of the policy. However, it is having unintended consequences when applied to our veterans.

Finally, while it is true that more and more veterans are choosing to use VA as their provider of choice as a result of the excellent care provided by the system, there are still hundreds of thousands of veterans who use VA because they are financially unable to afford the private health system. I am proud that this Nation stands by those veterans who cannot provide for their own care in the private system. However, I do not think we should statutorily preclude them from even trying to take control of their own health care finances.

What harm would come if a veteran, who uses VA today because he or she has no other option, was suddenly allowed to purchase a low premium, high deductible plan and then begin to contribute to a savings account that he or she would now own. I say no harm at all. The only thing that could come of this is that the veteran may one day say to his government: I was there for you when you needed me. You were there for me when I needed you. Now, I no longer need you.

Again, I am not saying that veterans should feel as though I am trying to get them to leave the VA system. I am not. But, I certainly do not want to stop a veteran from choosing to buy insurance, start saving in an HSA, and one day leaving the system. I think one of the things government can do for its citizens is provide the tools and assistance that will allow Americans to provide for themselves. That is what this legislation is about.

I am confident that many of you will agree with the premise that it is a basic issue of fairness to support allowing service-connected veterans to establish HSAs. But, I also hope that I have demonstrated here today that it is sound public policy to extend the HSA option to all veterans who use VA's health care system.

I urge my colleagues to be cosponsors of this legislation and I urge passage of the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce legislation to allow veterans who use the VA health care system to establish health savings accounts, HSAs. This legislation will increase health insurance options for veterans and their families, provide future options in the choice of health care providers for veterans, and could ultimately allow veterans who are forced to rely on the VA health care system today to choose to receive care from the private health care system in the future.

As my colleagues are aware, current law allows individuals who purchase a high deductible health insurance plan to contribute funds, on behalf of themselves and their family, to a health savings account. Funds are contributed to the HSA on a pretax basis and then can be withdrawn for qualified health care expenses without any tax consequence.

In order for a person's HSA to be in ``good standing'' with the IRS, the individual cannot carry health insurance that provides coverage for any health services prior to reaching the deductible amount of the high deductible plan. Of course, like many government programs, there are exceptions to the rules for certain circumstance. Most notably, a person does not jeopardize an HSA by purchasing long-term care or accident insurance nor is the receipt of workman's compensation coverage disqualified from contributing to an account. Yet the IRS has advised the health insurance industry that VA health care would count as a health insurance plan that provides coverage for health care services prior to reaching the high deductible limit. Therefore, veterans who use VA are not eligible to establish health savings accounts.

At the time this issue was brought to my attention, the argument was limited to the narrow issue of service-connected veterans being denied an opportunity to avail themselves of the tax advantages of an HSA simply because they suffered an injury related to their service in the military and the government was providing care for that injury. Of course, that seemed outrageous to me. Like any employer, the Government has an obligation to provide treatment for injuries sustained while military personal are serving our country. And if workman's comp is a current exemption, why not VA care?

So, I set out to draft a bill to allow service-connected veterans who use VA for service-connected treatment to establish HSAs. But, the more I considered the arguments for allowing those who use VA for service- connected conditions to have HSAs, the more I realized that the arguments applied just as strongly to all VA patients. I would like to take a moment to explain my arguments.

First, the current law unfairly affects families of veterans when the veteran is the sole provider of income for the family. As everyone knows, VA is not a family health care provider except in the extreme case of a permanently disabled service-connected veteran. Therefore if a veteran--even a service-connected veteran--uses the VA health care system, current law does not even allow that veteran to contribute money on behalf of his family to an HSA. What good does that do? Why would we prohibit a veteran from providing health coverage to his or her family? In my opinion, that does neither the veteran nor his or her family any good. It is simply a well-intention policy when applied to HSAs, with a harmful, unintended consequence as applied to veterans.

Second, under current law VA is permitted to bill insurance carriers for the treatment of nonservice connected conditions. Further, many veterans are required to pay copayments to VA in order to receive that same care. So, veterans have out-of-pocket medical expenses and VA can bill their insurance provider. Yet we have a policy that disallows the establishment of a tax free account to pay for those medical expenses and--even worse--provides a disincentive for the veterans to buy an insurance policy that VA could one day bill. Again, I understand the genesis of the policy. However, it is having unintended consequences when applied to our veterans.

Finally, while it is true that more and more veterans are choosing to use VA as their provider of choice as a result of the excellent care provided by the system, there are still hundreds of thousands of veterans who use VA because they are financially unable to afford the private health system. I am proud that this Nation stands by those veterans who cannot provide for their own care in the private system. However, I do not think we should statutorily preclude them from even trying to take control of their own health care finances.

What harm would come if a veteran, who uses VA today because he or she has no other option, was suddenly allowed to purchase a low premium, high deductible plan and then begin to contribute to a savings account that he or she would now own. I say no harm at all. The only thing that could come of this is that the veteran may one day say to his government: I was there for you when you needed me. You were there for me when I needed you. Now, I no longer need you.

Again, I am not saying that veterans should feel as though I am trying to get them to leave the VA system. I am not. But, I certainly do not want to stop a veteran from choosing to buy insurance, start saving in an HSA, and one day leaving the system. I think one of the things government can do for its citizens is provide the tools and assistance that will allow Americans to provide for themselves. That is what this legislation is about.

I am confident that many of you will agree with the premise that it is a basic issue of fairness to support allowing service-connected veterans to establish HSAs. But, I also hope that I have demonstrated here today that it is sound public policy to extend the HSA option to all veterans who use VA's health care system.

I urge my colleagues to be cosponsors of this legislation and I urge passage of the bill as soon as possible.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Recycling Investment Saves Energy--RISE--Act of 2006 with my colleague Senator Carper. The RISE tax incentives will create jobs, increase productivity, conserve energy and expand America's recycling infrastructure.

I offer this bill to capture the significant energy savings available through greater recycling. For example, recycling aluminum cans saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source. The amount of lost energy from throwing away aluminum and steel cans, plastic PET and glass containers, newsprint and corrugated packaging was equivalent to the annual output of 15 medium sized coal powerplants. Increasing the recycling rate of these commodities by 10 percent would save enough energy annually to heat 74,350 million American homes, provide the required electricity for 2.5 million Americans, and save about $771 million in avoid costs for barrels of crude oil. As a result, recycling should be an integral component of our nation's energy efficiency strategy.

The RISE Act would also help create quality jobs. Due to the diminishing quantity and quality of available recyclable materials, many companies currently are not able to obtain the volume of quality recycled feedstock needed to meet demand. This new economic challenge makes it even harder for recycled products to compete in the marketplace. In some cases, recyclers have been forced to shut down their operations in the United States and relocate to other countries due in part to insufficient or poor quality recycled feedstocks. This is particularly unfortunate as, on a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables are estimated to sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration.

A national investment in our recycling infrastructure is necessary to reverse the stagnant or declining recycling rate of many consumer commodities, including aluminum, glass and plastic. For example, 55 billion aluminum cans were wasted by not being recycled in 2004, which represents approximately $1 billion of aluminum lost to industry. The recycling rate of paper is estimated to be roughly 51 percent, glass containers 35 percent, and PET plastic bottles less than 20 percent.

The RISE Act will save energy and improve the quantity and quality of recycled materials by allowing companies to claim either a 15-percent tax credit or a 50 percent accelerated depreciation deduction for the purchase of machinery and other equipment used exclusively to collect, distribute or recyclable material. Recyclable material is defined broadly to capture a wide variety of commodities, including plastic, scrap textiles, scrap rubber, scrap packaging, recovered fiber, scrap ferrous and nonferrous metals, or electronic waste generated by an individual or business. It does not include buildings, real estate or rolling stock used to transport reuse and recyclable materials.

The RISE Act aims to reverse the trend in recycling rates and resulting energy loss by incentivizing greater collection, distribution and recycling of quality recyclable materials. The bill will address quality concerns by reducing the barriers hindering investment in optical sorting and other state-of-the-art equipment needed at material recovery and manufacturing facilities. It will make innovative technology more affordable, such as reversible vending machines that collect and process empty containers. An earlier version of RISE was incorporated as section 1545 of the Senate Energy Policy Act of 2005, but did not survive the conference committee.

The Rise Act will amend section 142 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by redefining ``solid waste facilities'' to ensure that recycling facilities are eligible for tax-exempt bond financing under this section. This latter provision was created to resolve an ongoing glitch in the law that prevents these facilities from being eligible for tax- exempt financing.

The following organizations support the RISE Act: American Beverage Association, American Forest & Paper Association, Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, Ball Corporation, Carolina Recycling Association, Glass Packaging Institute, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc., ISRI, National Association for PET Container Resources, NAPCOR, National Recycling Coalition, National Solid Wastes Management Association, Solid Waste Association of North America, Steel Recycling Institute, US Conference of Mayors/Municipal Waste Management Association, Waste Technology Equipment Association, WASTEC, Envision Plastics, EvCo Research, LLC, Florikan ESA Corporation, L B. Schmidt and Associates, Mid America Recycling Companies, MSS, Inc., Novelis, Inc., formerly Alcan, NRT, Inc., O-I, formerly Owens-Illinois, Orwak Group, Reynolds Recycling, Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., Strategic Materials, Inc., The Coca Cola Company, TiTech Visionsort, Tomra, UltrePET, United Resource Recovery Corporation, Van Dyke Bailer Corp/ Lubo USA, wTe Corporation, Paper Recycling Coalition, and Yemm and Hart,

Ltd. Mr. President, most of these organizations have submitted a joint letter in support of the RISE Act, and I will ask to have the letter printed in the Record following the statement.

Reducing the barriers to recycling also serves a number of environmental goals, including lessening the need for new landfills, preventing emissions of many air and water pollutants, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and stimulating the development of green technology. But most importantly, recycling helps preserve resources of our children's future.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I join with my dear colleague, Senator Feinstein, to address a critical problem--the prevention of HIV infection. HIV/AIDS affects people of all walks of life and all corners of the globe. Today over 40 million are infected with HIV. In the United States today, we have seen HIV infection become a much more manageable disease as modern medications have enabled so many to lead productive lives. That was certainly not so ten years ago.

Today the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, is intended to extend the progress we have made to countries where resources are so limited that HIV infection has inevitably led to AIDS and death. PEPFAR is intended to prevent 7 million new infections, to bring 2 million into treatment, and to provide care for approximately 10 million with HIV/AIDS.

Prevention is clearly key to stopping this global epidemic. In Uganda we have seen remarkable progress made in preventing infection when a combined strategy was employed which promoted abstinence, faithfulness in marriage, and condom use--the ``ABC'' approach.

The Congress saw this strategy could be effective, and many sought to ensure that abstinence would be supported in PEPFAR. In fact, a statutory requirement mandates that one-third of all PEPFAR prevention monies are dedicated to the exclusive use of abstinence and faithfulness in marriage to prevent HIV infection.

It is critical to recognize that abstinence, and even marital faithfulness, is not enough to stem the tide of this epidemic. Abstinence is not a relevant means of protection if you are, for example, a married woman who has an HIV-positive husband. That woman needs protection, whether that be a condom, a microbicide, or other means to protect herself.

We also recognize that sexual transmission is certainly not the only means of transmitting HIV. We have seen newborns and infants infected during delivery and nursing. We have seen failures of hygiene in hospital settings cause HIV/AIDS. We have seen HIV spread by drug abuse. Each of these must be addressed to reduce the spread the HIV virus.

So we can see that while devoting funds for abstinence programs to prevent sexual transmission of HIV may be justified, one certainly could harm other efforts with a mandate that one-third of all funds be so dedicated.

That is indeed what has transpired. In April the GAO reported that countries are encountering difficulty in meeting their prevention needs because they must spend one-third of all their prevention funds on abstinence and faithfulness programs. They know they should not ignore other prevention strategies. Sometimes they end up spending more than needed on prevention as a result, while in other cases essential prevention programs are sacrificed.

Consider the actual impact of such a rigid funding requirement today. The

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation has reported that in Swaziland, nearly half of the women visiting their health clinics are HIV-infected. Abstinence education is not germane to these women--nor is faithfulness. They wish to avoid infecting their children. So the needs of a given country, and even of a local community, must take precedence. A one-size-fits-all approach certainly does not work.

That is why I have joined Senator Feinstein today in introducing legislation to address the problems which the GAO described. It does this quite simply. First, it acknowledges that abstinence can play a role in preventing HIV infection. As such, the bill maintains a requirement for abstinence--so that at least one-third of funds used for preventing sexual transmission will be dedicated to such programs. Yet with two-thirds available for other means, we know countries can respond with all appropriate prevention strategies.

By setting the abstinence funding requirement so it applies only to sexual transmission, we will avoid impacting those programs which prevent nonsexual transmission of HIV. We cannot forget that these other strategies--such as reducing mother-to-child transmission--are major needs in some localities.

Our legislation does a second critical thing. The current statute requires exclusivity in funded abstinence programs. If, for example, your program desired to dispense condoms, you could not do so, even if this was a very minor part of your program's prevention efforts. Now consider again the ``discordant'' couple--where only one spouse is infected. Would anyone propose that in that marriage, one should not help the uninfected partner remain so? Our legislation provides a bit of flexibility and allows funded abstinence programs to utilize other strategies such as condoms as a minor part of their prevention program. That is simply commonsense. It follows what we have seen to work--the ``ABC'' approach.

Finally, this legislation does a third thing, and that is to simply recognize that sexually active youth who live in a country where HIV infection is spreading through the general population should be considered at high risk of contracting HIV and provided with information on the complete range of tools to prevent the spread of HIV. We simply must not lose a generation to AIDS prevention can be so effective.

I thank the President for his leadership in bringing the PEPFAR effort forward to help millions realize the promise of a future in which HIV will no longer threaten their future. Today, I ask my colleagues to join with Senator Feinstein and me in seeing this legislation is enacted to ensure that we address the funding problems identified by the GAO and effectively employ HIV/AIDS prevention to stem this global epidemic.