[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6819-6823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mrs. Dole, and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 2701. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a refundable credit for high deductible health plans for uninsured 
individuals; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this week, the first week of May, is 
National Cover the Uninsured Week. Now in its fourth year, it is the 
largest nonpartisan effort in our Nation's history to raise awareness 
on the staggering numbers of Americans who do not have health 
insurance.
  Forty-six million Americans have no health insurance--including more 
than 8 million children. In Alaska, 110,000 people do not have health 
insurance--that is nearly 17 percent of our population. One-half of 
Alaska's uninsured live in a household with a least one child.
  Being uninsured too often means going without needed care--and minor 
illnesses can become major ones simply because health care is delayed. 
Over a third of Alaska's uninsured reported that they didn't seek 
medical care for themselves or their family when it was needed. Why? 
Because they couldn't afford it. An estimated 18,000 uninsured 
Americans die each year because they received too little care, too 
late.
  Most of these individuals and families are hard-working Americans--
just making it from paycheck to paycheck. In fact, 8 out of 10 of 
uninsured Americans either work or are in working families.
  To help those working families, I join Senator Santorum and Senator 
Dole in introducing the Helping Working Americans Afford Health 
Coverage Act of 2006. The goal of this bill is to make health coverage 
more affordable and accessible to the working populations with the 
greatest needs.
  This bill creates a progressive, refundable health care tax credit 
targeted toward low- and moderate-income individuals and families which 
can be used for health savings account-eligible health insurance. 
Recent studies show that low- and moderate-income Americans and those 
previously uninsured are enrolling in health savings accounts or HSAs. 
More than one-third of HSA purchasers last year had incomes under 
$50,000 per year, and one-third of individual HSA purchasers last year 
were previously uninsured.
  Specifically, the refundable tax credit would provide a subsidy of up 
to 90 percent of the cost of health care coverage, up to a maximum 
credit of $1,000 per adult and up to $3,000 for a family. Additionally, 
the credit will be advanceable so that an individual or family would 
not have to wait to be reimbursed to purchase coverage.
  This bill also contains an important provision to address the higher 
health care costs and higher poverty levels in the noncontiguous States 
of Alaska and Hawaii. In Alaska, the qualifying income thresholds for 
both individual Alaskans and Alaskan families are increased by 25 
percent.
  Though the Helping Working Americans Afford Health Coverage Act is 
not as comprehensive as S. 160, the SAVE Act, Securing Access, Value 
and Equality Act--legislation that I introduced earlier in the 
Congress--it is still an important first step in addressing the needs 
of the uninsured.
  The National Association of Health Underwriters states that this bill 
``will provide much needed relief by providing a refundable tax credit 
that can be used for both their health insurance policy premiums and as 
a deposit into their HSA account This (bill) will provide individuals 
with ready access to health care while encouraging them to become more 
engaged in the process of obtaining health care.''
  Mr. President, helping Americans afford insurance saves money in the 
long run. Between $65 billion and $130 billion of public health dollars 
are spent on treating acute patients. Much of this could be saved if 
only those individuals received preventative care.
  Making health insurance more affordable will make a real difference 
to the Nation's physical and economic health. I am proud of Alaskans 
and all Americans who have united during National Cover the Uninsured 
Week and are bringing attention to this national health care crisis. I 
ask my colleagues to take an important step in helping

[[Page 6820]]

the uninsured by supporting the Helping Working Americans Afford Health 
Insurance Act of 2006.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Frist, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Brownback, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Warner, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Allen, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Obama, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 2703. A bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairmen of both 
the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the ranking member of the 
House Judiciary Committee, the Democratic and Republican leaders of 
both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and members of 
Congress from both parties to introduce a bill to reauthorize and 
reinvigorate the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
The bicameral, bipartisan introduction of this bill reflects not only 
its historic importance as a guarantor of the right to vote for all 
Americans, but also the broad consensus that the expiring provisions 
must be extended this year without delay.
  There are few things as critical to our Nation, and to American 
citizenship, as voting. Like the rights guaranteed by the First 
Amendment, the right to vote is foundational because it secures the 
effective exercise of all other rights. As people are able to register, 
vote, and elect candidates of their choice, their interests and rights 
get attention. The very legitimacy of our government is dependent on 
the access all Americans have to the political process.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the result of an historic struggle 
for civil rights led by such American heroes as Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks, who refused to be treated as 
second-class citizens. That struggle reached a crucial turning point on 
March 7, 1965, on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, AL, when State 
troopers brutally attacked John Lewis and his fellow civil rights 
marchers who were fighting for their right to vote.
  The events of that day, now known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' were captured 
in newspapers and on televisions across the country, and those powerful 
images marked a crucial turning point in securing the right to vote for 
all Americans. A few days after the violence of Bloody Sunday, 
President Lyndon Johnson outlined the proposed Voting Rights Act of 
1965, before a joint session of Congress. Within months, Congress 
passed it so that the Constitution's guarantees of equal access to the 
electoral process, regardless of race, would not be undermined by 
discriminatory practices.
  The enactment of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 transformed the 
landscape of political inclusion. Prior to the Act, minorities of all 
races faced major barriers to participation in the political process, 
through the use of such devices as poll taxes, exclusionary primaries, 
intimidation by voting officials, language barriers, and systematic 
vote dilution. We have made great gains since that time, but our work 
is not finished. The record established in 10 hearings in the House of 
Representatives indicates that the tools provided by the expiring 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain necessary for protecting the 
voting rights of minority Americans in this country.
  Among the Act's most critical protections are the pre-clearance 
provisions of Section 5, which prevent discriminatory laws from going 
into practice. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act 
of 2006 would extend these protections for 25 years, retaining the most 
effective measures to fight certain kinds of pervasive and recurring 
discrimination.
  The insidious discriminatory tactics that led to the original Voting 
Rights Act were deeply rooted. In the annals of our Nation, this fight 
dates back almost 100 years, to the ratification of the 15th Amendment 
in 1870, the last of the post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments. It 
took implementation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for people of all 
races in many parts of our country to gain the effective exercise of 
rights guaranteed 95 years earlier by the 15th Amendment. The pre-
clearance provisions were one of the primary reasons this Act succeeded 
where earlier attempts had failed. Section 5 requires certain covered 
jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to pre-clear all voting 
changes with either the Department of Justice or the U.S. District 
Court for the District of Columbia. In doing so, Section 5 combats the 
practices in these jurisdictions of shifting from one invalidated 
discriminatory tactic to another, which had undermined earlier efforts 
to enforce 15th Amendment guarantees.
  We have made significant progress toward a more inclusive democracy 
over the past four decades since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act 
in 1965. However, I fear that if we fail to reauthorize the expiring 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act, our country is likely to 
backslide. We must make sure those gains do not suffer the same fate as 
the gains in voting rights made during Reconstruction.
  After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Act promised that the 
guarantees of the 15th Amendment would be realized. Between 1870 and 
1900, 22 African Americans served in the United States Congress. In 
1868, Louisiana elected an African-American Lieutenant Governor, Oscar 
Dunn, and 87 African Americans held seats in the South Carolina 
legislature. However, these Reconstruction-era gains in African-
American voting and representation proved to be short-lived. Following 
the end of Reconstruction, the rights of African Americans to vote and 
to hold office were virtually eliminated in many areas through 
discriminatory legal barriers, intimidation, and violence. The changes 
were swift, systematic and severe. By 1896, Representative George White 
of North Carolina was the only African American remaining in the U.S. 
Congress, and it would take 72 years after Representative White left 
Congress for African-American voters in the South to elect another 
candidate of their choice to Congress.
  In Mississippi, the percentage of African-American voting-age men 
registered to vote fell from more than 90 percent during Reconstruction 
to less than 6 percent in 1892. Between 1896 and 1900, the number of 
African-American voters in Louisiana was reduced from 130,000 to a mere 
5,000. Unlike their short-lived gains made during Reconstruction, 
African-American voters' exclusion from the ballot box was persistent. 
Only 3 percent of voting-age African-American men and women in the 
South were registered to vote in 1940, only 1 percent in Mississippi--
just 1 percent. These numbers are staggering, and they provide a 
history lesson we should not ignore.
  As part of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization in 1975, Congress 
added Section 203, which requires bilingual voting assistance for 
certain language minority groups. This provision was enacted pursuant 
to congressional power to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments. Section 
203 has been a key factor to expanding the inclusiveness of democracy 
to all citizens and has led to extraordinary gains in representation 
and participation made by Asian-American and Hispanic-American 
citizens. Like Section 5, Section 203 is expiring in 2007. The Voting 
Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 would extend 
these critical protections for 25 years.
  Hispanic-American populations have been one of the primary minority 
language groups to benefit from the protections of the bilingual 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act. For example effective 
implementation of the bilingual provisions in San Diego County, CA, 
helped increase voter registration by more than 20 percent. And voter 
turnout among Hispanic Americans in New Mexico rose 26 percent between 
2000 and 2004 after television and radio spots in Spanish educated 
listeners about voter registration and absentee ballots.
  Voting rights belong to people who are American citizens. They are 
trying to vote but many of them are struggling with the English 
language due to

[[Page 6821]]

disparities in education and the incremental process of learning. It is 
imperative that all citizens be able to fully exercise their rights as 
citizens, particularly a right as fundamental as the right to vote. 
Renewing the expiring language provisions of the Voting Rights Act will 
continue to help make that a reality.
  Rather than merely extending the Voting Rights Act, Congress now has 
an opportunity to reinvigorate the Act, strengthening and improving its 
remedies. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 
2006 does so by clarifying certain parts of Section 5 to give clear 
guidance to the Courts and to restore the original understanding of the 
Act. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly narrowed 
Section 5's effectiveness and undermined the purposes of the Act.
  The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 
remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Reno v. Bossier Parish, by 
making clear that a voting rule change motivated by any discriminatory 
purpose violates Section 5. Under the holding in Reno v. Bossier 
Parish, certain voting rule changes passed with the intent to 
discriminate against minorities could pass Section 5 muster. Because 
such an interpretation is inconsistent with purposes of the Voting 
Rights Act to eliminate discriminatory tactics that undermine the 
guarantees of the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 
and Amendments Act fixes this inconsistency by clarifying that a voting 
rule change motivated by any discriminatory purpose also cannot be pre-
cleared.
  The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 also 
remedies the Supreme Court's holding in Georgia v. Ashcroft. Under the 
test established in Georgia for assessing a jurisdiction's challenge to 
denial of Section 5 pre-clearance, the court can give greater weight to 
numerous undefined considerations than to the ability of a minority 
community to elect a candidate of its choice. This test is as difficult 
to administer as it is contrary to the purposes of the Act. This act 
fixes both of these problems by restoring the original understanding 
that the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to protect the minority 
community's ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and 
by setting forth defined factors.
  In addition to restoring the Act's original meaning, this Act makes 
changes to the expiring Federal examiners and observers provisions to 
better allocate resources for combating discrimination in voting. The 
Voting Rights Act provides for Federal examiners to ensure that legally 
qualified persons are free to register for Federal, State, and local 
elections and that observers to observe whether citizens who are 
eligible to vote are able to exercise the right to vote. Federal 
observers are the most frequently used federal oversight tool in voting 
and the only Federal officials authorized to enter polls and places 
where votes are tabulated. This Act eliminates Federal examiners 
because they have not been appointed to jurisdictions certified for 
coverage in more than 20 years, and other laws such as the Help America 
Vote Act now address the concern of voting rolls. At the same time, the 
bill strengthens the observers provisions to allow the assignment of 
federal observers upon finding that there is a reasonable belief that a 
violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments will occur, without having to 
first certify federal examiners.
  The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendment Act also removes 
an impediment to effective protection of voting rights by authorizing 
the prevailing party in a lawsuit brought under Section 2 to recover 
expert costs as part of the attorney fees already authorized. This will 
have a significant impact on the ability of litigants to successfully 
combat discrimination in court.
  The process of reauthorization began in the House of Representatives, 
where Representatives Nadler, Chabot and Watt presided over 10 hearings 
on the effectiveness and continuing need for the expiring provisions of 
the Voting Rights Act. Last week, the distinguished House Judiciary 
chairman and ranking member appeared before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and introduced the extensive record from those hearings. I am 
grateful for the hard work that has been done in the House, and I want 
to thank Chairman Specter for agreeing to move forward promptly with 
Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the expiring provisions.
  Congress has reauthorized and revitalized the Act four times, each 
time with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. As I noted last week in 
welcoming the House Judiciary chairman and ranking member, we are 
repeating the bicameral and bipartisan process of the 1982 
reauthorization. In 1982, Chairman Specter and I were both Members of 
the Judiciary Committee, along with Senators Kennedy, Biden, Hatch and 
Grassley. Under the chairmanship of Senator Strom Thurmond, 
reauthorization was reported by the Judiciary Committee and passed both 
houses of Congress. I am hopeful that our Committee can accomplish the 
work that needs to be done and report this bill to the full Senate 
before the Memorial Day recess.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important laws 
Congress has ever passed, helping to usher the country out of a history 
of discrimination and into the greater inclusion of all Americans in 
the decisions about our Nation's future. Our democracy and our Nation 
have been better and richer for it. While I hope some day these 
extraordinary remedies are not needed, I urge the Senate to build on 
the work done in the House of Representatives to extend the expiring 
provisions so that we can eliminate recurring discrimination and make 
sure that the gains we have made are not lost. I am heartened that this 
is not a partisan issue benefiting one party or another. Rather, as 
demonstrated by the bicameral and bipartisan process we continue for 
reauthorizing and revitalizing the Act's expiring provisions, this is 
about making our democracy reflect the will of all of the American 
people.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with 21 
of my Senate colleagues from diverse political, geographic, and ethnic 
backgrounds, a bipartisan and bicameral bill to reauthorize the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee has had a very busy year. Last Fall, 
while the House was beginning its hearings on the Voting Rights Act, we 
were just finishing our hearings and final vote on the nomination of 
John G. Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Soon 
after that, we began preparing for hearings on the nomination of 
Harriet Miers to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court. When 
that nomination was withdrawn, we had to start over with a new nominee, 
Samuel Alito. We held hearings for Justice Alito in January, and since 
then, we've had a very full schedule which has included several 
hearings on the legality of the President's domestic spying program 
and, of course, countless hours marking up comprehensive immigration 
legislation.
  So, we are just now beginning our work on the Voting Rights Act. But 
our relatively late start here in the Senate should not be interpreted 
to suggest that the Voting Rights Act is not a priority compared to the 
other matters we have had to address. To the contrary, the actions we 
take with respect to the Voting Rights Act--like the actions we took 
during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings--will dramatically 
impact the rights and lives of American citizens for generations to 
come.
  The Voting Rights Act has been hailed as the single most effective 
piece of civil rights legislation that we have ever passed. The Act 
does not simply guarantee the right to vote, but it ensures the 
effective exercise of that fundamental right. In 1965, when President 
Johnson signed the bill into law, there were only 300 minorities 
elected to State, local, or federal office. Today, just 4 decades 
later, there are some 10,000 minorities serving as elected public 
officials.
  Leaders from both parties, including President Bush and Attorney 
General Gonzales, have said they support reauthorization. Today, 
leaders from both

[[Page 6822]]

parties of both houses of Congress have come together to introduce this 
reauthorization bill.
  The magic of the Voting Rights Act is apparent in my own hometown, 
New York City. New York City is one of the most diverse cities in the 
country, and the Voting Rights Act has been extremely effective in 
ensuring that all of our citizens are able to participate equally in 
the political process. But many of the Act's successes in New York have 
come only since the last time we renewed its major provisions.
  For example, the first African American mayor of New York City wasn't 
elected until 1989, and the first African American wasn't elected to 
statewide office until 1994. In 2002, the first Asian American was 
elected to the New York City Council. And finally, just last year, a 
mayoral candidate became the first Latino to win his party's 
nomination.
  These strides are important, but they are too few and too recent to 
say for certain that the goals of the Voting Rights Act have been met. 
There is still a lot of work to do, and as a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, I look forward to reviewing the evidence and testimony that 
is going to be presented at our hearings in the weeks to come, and to 
working with my colleagues from both Houses and on both sides of the 
aisle to ensure that this bill is passed well before the deadline.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Biden, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2704. A bill to revise and extend the National Police Athletic 
League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join Senators Specter, Feinstein, 
Biden, Kerry, Boxer, Schumer, Nelson of Florida, Menendez, Dodd, 
Kennedy, Lautenberg, Durbin, and Lieberman to introduce a bill to 
reauthorize the Police Athletic/Activities League, better known as PAL. 
These local youth crime prevention programs, run by police officers 
nationwide, provide after-school educational, athletic, and 
recreational opportunities for the communities they serve.
  The first PAL chapter was founded in the 1910s in New York. The 
growth since then has been tremendous, and there are now over 330 PAL 
chapters in 38 States, DC, the Virgin Islands, Canada, and Nigeria, 
serving approximately 2 million children between the ages of 5 and 18. 
In my own home State of Ohio, we are fortunate enough to have 28 of 
these outstanding organizations.
  Studies conducted in Eastlake, OH, and Portland, OR, have shown a 
substantial drop in the juvenile crime rate in those two cities upon 
the creation of a PAL chapter. These chapters make a point to serve 
those most in need. For example, 50 percent of the kids involved in the 
28 Ohio chapters come from families with a median income of less than 
$20,000.
  PAL chapters provide kids with a wide range of activities. One 
chapter in Ohio, for instance--the Chillicothe-Ross County Police 
Athletic League--has offered dances, films, rap contests, and programs 
in archery, art, basketball, bowling, boxing, computers, cooking, CPR, 
fishing, fitness, lacrosse, nutrition, paint ball, running, tumbling, 
volleyball, and weightlifting. Other chapters around the country have 
offered programs like chess, flag football, junior golf, homework clubs 
and hydroponic gardening. In addition--through their Youth Leadership 
Council--PALs provide a setting for kids to learn important skills to 
assist them in becoming the leaders of tomorrow.
  But, the Police Athletic/Activities League does more than merely 
provide after-school activities to kids who may not otherwise have 
access to tutoring or athletic facilities. PAL provides them with 
mentors and positive role models. In addition, PAL programs help teach 
kids that their relationship with law enforcement need not be one that 
is ``us vs. them;'' instead, to quote National PAL, itself, the 
relationship can be one of ``cops and kids together--providing 
solutions through sports and education.''
  The money provided by this reauthorization bill would enable PAL 
programs to continue their current programs and also expand--at a rate 
of 50 chapters per year--into areas where kids can truly benefit from 
the good work of the PAL.
  The PAL has been a success for over 90 years, and the Senate 
consistently has supported this outstanding organization. We passed the 
National Police Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000 by 
unanimous consent, and I urge my colleagues to continue to support the 
PAL with this reauthorization.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2704

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Police Athletic 
     League Youth Enrichment Reauthorization Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 2 of the National Police Athletic League Youth 
     Enrichment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) through (G) as 
     subparagraphs (D) through (H), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) develop life enhancing character and leadership 
     skills in young people;'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``55-year'' and inserting 
     ``90-year'';
       (3) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``320 PAL chapters'' and inserting ``350 
     PAL chapters''; and
       (B) by striking ``1,500,000 youth'' and inserting 
     ``2,000,000 youth'';
       (4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``82 percent'' and 
     inserting ``85 percent'';
       (5) in paragraph (5), in the second sentence, by striking 
     ``receive no'' and inserting ``rarely receive'';
       (6) in paragraph (6), by striking ``17 are at risk'' and 
     inserting ``18 are at risk''; and
       (7) in paragraph (7), by striking ``1999'' and inserting 
     ``2005''.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       Section 3 of the National Police Athletic League Youth 
     Enrichment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``320 established PAL chapters'' and 
     inserting ``342 established PAL chapters''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2006.'' and inserting 
     ``2010; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) support of an annual gathering of PAL chapters and 
     designated youth leaders from such chapters to participate in 
     a 3-day conference that addresses national and local issues 
     impacting the youth of America and includes educational 
     sessions to advance character and leadership skills.''.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.

       Section 5 of the National Police Athletic League Youth 
     Enrichment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2001 through 2005'' 
     and inserting ``2006 through 2010''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``not less than 
     570 PAL chapters in operation before January 1, 2004'' and 
     inserting ``not fewer than 500 PAL chapters in operation 
     before January 1, 2010''.

     SEC. 5. USE OF FUNDS.

       Section 6(a)(2) of the National Police Athletic League 
     Youth Enrichment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``four'' and inserting ``two''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``two 
     programs'' and inserting ``one program'';
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'';
       (C) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' and inserting 
     ``or''; and
       (D) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
       ``(v) character development and leadership training; and''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 8(a) of the National Police Athletic League Youth 
     Enrichment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended by 
     striking ``2001 through 2005'' and inserting ``2006 through 
     2010''.

     SEC. 7. NAME OF LEAGUE.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 4(4) of the National Police 
     Athletic League Youth Enrichment Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 13751 
     note) is amended in the paragraph heading, by striking 
     ``Athletic'' and inserting ``Athletic/activities''.
       (b) Text.--The National Police Athletic League Youth 
     Enrichment Act of 2000 (42

[[Page 6823]]

     U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended by striking ``Police Athletic 
     League'' each place such term appears and inserting ``Police 
     Athletic/Activities League''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2708. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide an 
enrollment priority for veterans, who are recipients of certain medals 
of valor, in health care services provided by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of our Nation's 
veterans and military heroes to introduce the ``Heroes Healthcare 
Eligibility Act of 2006.'' This legislation would recognize the 
sacrifices and contributions of our Nation's military heroes by 
ensuring that our military heroes have full access to VA health care.
  Since January 2003, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has used his 
authority under current law to prohibit Priority 8 veterans from 
enrolling in the VA health care system. Priority 8 veterans are those 
with no service-connected disability and have an income of over 
$26,902. To date, more than 260,000 of these supposed ``middle-income'' 
veterans have been turned away from the VA health care system.
  I was dismayed to learn that the group of Priority 8 veterans may 
include thousands of war heroes, who were awarded medals for valor in 
combat but are ineligible for health care because of income 
limitations. Lou Green, a Korean war veteran and veterans advocate, 
brought a case to my attention where a multiple Silver Star award 
winner was denied access to care. This particular veteran had income 
just slightly above the means test limit but was told that his award 
``meant nothing'' for getting VA health care.
  This bill would recognize those veterans who have been awarded the 
Silver Star Medal or higher for valor and give them access to VA health 
care on par with former POWs; service connected veterans rated 10 
percent or 20 percent disabled and all those who have received a Purple 
Heart. From World War II to present, more than 134,000 servicemembers 
have been awarded either the Silver Star, Air Force Cross, Navy Cross, 
Distinguished Service Cross or the Medal of Honor.
  I would tell my colleagues that there is precedent for establishing 
priority eligibility for a veteran's benefit as a result of being 
awarded a military decoration. As I mentioned before, today combat 
veterans in receipt of a Purple Heart are eligible for VA health care, 
as they fall into the third priority group. Also, current policy at 
Arlington National Cemetery gives eligibility for full-body burial to 
those who have been awarded the Silver Star or higher for valor or are 
in receipt of the Purple Heart.
  As much as I would like to reopen the doors to VA health care for all 
Priority 8 veterans, this legislation to recognize our Nation's 
military heroes is a step in the right direction. It is time our 
decorated military heroes receive the recognition they so richly 
deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in making this needed change 
to VA's health eligibility for our military heroes a reality.

                          ____________________