Steve Buyer

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4843, as amended.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would also like the Members to note that last year when we came to the floor, we thought that the COLA was going to be about 2.7 percent. Once they did the adjustment on the CPI, it ended up being about 4.1 percent. I don't know what it is going to be this year. That was a huge change. Even though we are saying approximately 2.2, I don't know what it is going to be. I would like to thank Lane Evans and Bob Filner for their work. I would also like to thank Mr. Miller and Ms. Berkley. I would like to thank Mr. Udall and Ms. Brown. Also, I thank them in appreciation for the timely fashion in which they moved this bill through the committee and now onto the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.

Mr. BUYER. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4843, as amended, is one of the more important bills the committee brings to the floor each year. On April 6 of this year, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, chaired by Mr. Miller of Florida, took testimony on H.R. 4843. The subcommittee then marked this bill on June 8 and reported the bill favorably to the full committee by unanimous voice vote. The full committee reported the bill, as amended, on June 22. H.R. 4843, as amended, would provide a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA, to disabled veterans and certain survivors in the same amount given to Social Security recipients. All veterans who receive disability compensation and qualified survivors would receive the adjustment beginning December 1 of this year. Congress has acted on COLA legislation every fiscal year since 1976. More than 2.6 million veterans receive service-connected disability compensation. These benefits are paid monthly and range from $112 for a 10 percent disability to $2,393 for a 100 percent disability. Additional monetary benefits are available for our most severely disabled veterans, as well as those with dependents. Spouses of veterans who died on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability may also be entitled to monetary compensation. The amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation is $1,033. Additional amounts are paid to survivors who are housebound or in need of aid and attendants or have minor children. Currently, about 340,000 surviving spouses and children are receiving survivors' benefits. The amendment to the bill by Ms. Berkley would also provide a COLA to the dependency and indemnity compensation transitional benefit. Established in Public Law 108-454, transitional DIC is a 2-year benefit; and it is intended to ease the family's transition following the death of a service member or veteran. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting a 2.2 percent COLA increase, but it may be higher or lower depending upon the changes in the Consumer Price Index. The exact percentage will be calculated as of September 30, 2006. The cost of providing a COLA is assumed in the administration's budget baseline; therefore, it will be budget neutral. Additionally, H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill of 2007 fully funds a veterans' COLA effective December 1, 2006. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4843) to increase, effective as of December 1, 2006, the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. I will readily admit that the underlying goal of this bill is commendable. Reducing government waste and unnecessary spending is an admirable goal, one that this Congress should pursue diligently. In fact, I voted in favor of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. I have seen the line item veto in action . . . by President Clinton on a military construction appropriations law. Experience is a cruel, but effective teacher. That experience has shown me that the line item veto in its practical application would abrogate Congressional authority and give the executive additional power over the legislative branch, threatening the fine balance of power that our Founding Fathers wisely ensured. Since 1996, the Supreme Court has ruled the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 unconstitutional for its violation of Article 1, Section 7, known as the Presentation Clause of the United States Constitution. Justice Kennedy stated in his opinion in Clinton v. New York, ``Failure of political will does not justify unconstitutional remedies''. I stand by the decision of the Court and believe that its judgment is applicable to the bill before us. In the Supreme Court ruling on Clinton v. New York the opinion of the Court stated that the ``cancellations'' of the 1996 Act were not merely exercises of the President's discretionary budget authority but a violation of Article I, Sec. 7, giving the President ``unilateral'' power to change the language of a duly enacted statute. In plain English, the bill did not allow Congress to exercise its constitutionally invested powers. The bill before us today, H.R. 4890, attempts to avoid this hazard by requiring an up or down vote on each rescission. While these rescissions come to Congress for forced consideration, it does not get around the objections of the Court that the President, in his rescissions, is unilaterally changing a duly enacted statute. By forcing Congress to take up rescissions I fear this measure would tip the scales of power in favor of the executive. The Clinton ruling states that ``Statutory repeals must conform with Article I, (INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954,) but there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal. The constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellations occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part'' (Clinton v. New York pp. 17-24). This gets to the heart of my argument that Congress has still not addressed the objections of the Court. The ideals of the 1996 Act for fiscal restraint did not match the practical application leading me to question the ability of the executive to faithfully carry out this legislation, no matter how well intentioned. I cannot in good faith and a clear conscience hand over legislative authority to the executive branch and vote for legislation that seeks to dilute this process. With regard to the practical aspects of the line item veto, when I voted in favor of the 1996 Act, it was my hope and likely the hope of everyone who supported the measure that the power would be used responsibly, wisely, and prudently. I saw this power abused and misused. After signing the Military Construction Appropriations measure for Fiscal Year 1998, President Clinton used the line item veto authority for 38 construction projects. The Clinton administration cited three criteria for canceling the projects. The projects (1) were not requested by the military; (2) could not make contributions to the national defense in FY 1998; and (3) would not benefit the quality of life and well-being of military personnel. The Clinton administration did not even follow its own criteria! The Clinton administration even acknowledged that it had used erroneous data as the basis for striking 18 of the 38 projects. The overwhelming majority of the projects were on the administration's own 5-year construction plan. It cut critical funding for our Nation's Guard and Reserves. This was a blatant use of raw executive arrogance and power. It was simply an exercise of the White House wanting its way and ignoring the spending priorities set by Congress. Furthermore, the Clinton White House made very clear that it would use the line-item veto as a matter of politics, rather than objective fiscal policy. The line item veto was being used as leverage against Congress to obtain consent to the White House's demand for both more spending and for policy positions. The Clinton administration made illegitimate the fundamental rationale for the line-item veto . . . to reduce spending. They used the power to threaten the cutting of Members' projects to extract more spending for the administration's priorities; thereby, the line item veto was used to increase spending, not decrease spending. Despite the need to trim federal spending, I am convinced that this legislation, if enacted, could again be misused by the executive branch, as has already been proven by the example of the Clinton administration. As Justice Kennedy wrote, ``That a congressional cession of power is voluntary does not make it innocuous'' (Clinton v. New York p. 4). I am a voice for the Fourth District of Indiana. My constituents want controls on the budget and restraint in federal spending. But, neither will I have their voices muffled by an executive power grab. I took an oath to ``defend the Constitution.'' I must protect the voice of my constituents and the power the Constitution invests in me as their representative.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. I thank the two gentlemen and look forward to working with you as we go to conference. Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BUYER. I thank the chairman, and I yield to Mr. Murtha.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the issue I bring before my colleagues is that we have done a very good job in protecting the soldiers on the battlefield, and I want to compliment Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha for all you have done. And you have done that to protect them against ballistics. So we have given them the body armor. They have the side plates, the shoulder plates, throat plate, groin plate, and they have this helmet on them and it protects them against the ballistic and crash. But we have a problem. The problem is now, when these IEDs go off, we have blast injuries. Where before you would be close to a blast and the body or the torso would absorb part of that blast, now that blast hits all that armor that we have put on them, and part of that goes up the face where the helmet is strapped onto the chin, and when it goes up into the helmet there is no place for the force to be released. So you get a concussion, and as the force then comes back down you get a precussion. So we have traumatic brain injuries. We need to examine this, and I want to work with Mr. Young, with Mr. Weldon, and Mr. Murtha. We need for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct a series of comprehensive, nonballistic and ballistic tests and an evaluation of the Marine Corps light combat helmet and Army combat helmet with all qualified sling, pad, and suspension systems available in accordance with the operational requirements applicable to such helmets.

Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for his good work.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 731. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Moran and Mr. Ryun of Kansas for their leadership. I offer my deepest appreciation to the men and women of the Patriot Guard Riders, dedicated and committed Americans who will not wait for others to act, but they took upon themselves the solemn responsibility of right action. On Memorial Day, before President Bush attended the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, he signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. This new law prohibits disruptions of military funerals at national cemeteries and Arlington, which is owned by the U.S. Army. Standing behind the President as he signed the bill in the Oval Office was the executive director of the Patriot Guard Riders, Jeff Brown, and five of his Patriot Guard Riders. They stood beside the families of two soldiers who had made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq, that of Sergeant Rickey Jones of Kokomo, Indiana; and the family of Sergeant Joshua Youmans of Flushing, Michigan. Both families had endured harassment by protesters who were cheering the deaths of their sons. Patriot Guard Riders, acting out of decency, compassion and respect for the law, often place themselves between the families and the hateful perversions of those who would sharpen the pain of a mourning family's unspeakable loss. The mission of the Patriot Guard riders is simple: Show sincere respect for our fallen heroes and their families, their communities; and shield the mourning family and friends from interruptions created by any protester or group of protesters. Patriot Guard Riders attend the funerals at the invitation of the family, and they adhere to strictly legal and nonviolent means. These patriots use their vacation time and fund their own expenses to stand with the grieving families. Among the hallmarks of the American character is our compassion and human decency. It is how we care for each other in difficult times. In towns across this country, this is evident in the thousands of Americans who line the roads in condolence at the passage of a loved one to attend the military funeral. The independent action, I think, is another of America's sacred traits. The Patriot Guard Riders, seeing an injustice, chose to rise up and not permit the desecration of the sacred. Their courage, their conviction, and their simple decency on behalf of families grieving at the loss of a loved one represent the very best of our Nation. In return, we as a Nation offer them our gratitude for unselfishly serving to protect the sanctity of military funerals and for easing the burden of mourning families and their communities, thereby setting a worthy example for everyone. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Immediately following the attacks on September 11, 2001, this Nation's focus was on countering the fundamental ideals of terrorism that spawned the attack on our homeland. Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban, connected together through the terror they inflicted, had shared ambitions to destroy our way of life. Five years later, we have witnessed successes of historical proportions. Saddam--imprisoned and on trial for acts against humanity; Osama is on the run and we captured his number two; the Taliban no longer exists--for the first time in Afghanistan, their citizens are free to hope and dream; women are receiving an education. Al Qaeda is demonstrating what comes from the crushing pains of defeat, left only with cowardly acts of desperation in a weakening effort to survive the blows that we have dealt it. Today in Iraq we are on the verge of the blossoming of a successful new republic, accomplished by the perseverance of its citizens, and the sacrifices of many. Yet, some of our own countrymen are showing a dangerous tendency to waiver, their faith shaken by the drive-through mentality of our society. They are verbalizing their doubts at a time when we need them to stand strong. The peace-doves who turned hawks of circumstance after September 11 were predicted to not have the intestinal fortitude to see this fight through to its necessary resolution. They are living up to that prediction despite the threat of terrorism still lurking around the world. We cannot forget that the goals of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are to destroy western culture in all of its forms and manifestations. All across America, our constituents live their lives--take their kids to school, go to work, earn a living--and this is the strength of our Nation. However, we still live in the shadow of a real and looming threat to our way of life. We must remain vigilant of that threat and stand firm in our vow to dismantle it. While we have not been attacked on our own soil since September 11, we cannot afford the ramifications of complacency. The recent arrest of bomb-building terrorists across the border in Canada is clear evidence of that. We have forced the terrorists into making this an ``away game,'' the battlefield pushed from our homeland, but nonetheless the outcome must be in our favor. Yes, the victories in this battle are many, but we must have the resolve and determination to defeat terrorism here at home and abroad. To succeed we must be absolute and have constancy of purpose. For decades Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq with an iron fist of repression. In the midst of that oppression was the intense yearning of the Iraqi people to taste freedom. They were forced to keep their hopes hidden, wrapped in a cocoon that they could one day blossom into the living principles from which they could rebuild their nation. They have emerged from that cocoon and are attempting to fly. The elements that were forming in it have manifested themselves in the formation of their new government, two successful national elections, and a successful national constitutional referendum. Iraq cannot continue to succeed in the transition from war to building their Nation without our continued help. The people of Iraq have appealed to us in this critically important period. We have pledged our commitment to them and we need to see it through. The Iraqi people are proud of their accomplishments thus far, but they have asked for a steady hand of reassurance from us to help guide them in this transition. The pride and motivation that the Iraqi population has demonstrated to this point are key elements to making their young government a success. We must continue to nurture their growth of confidence so that they can effectively govern, defend, and sustain themselves. The motivation to man a completely volunteer Iraqi army is one point of evidence that these people have pride and faith in their new republic. We cannot fail the security of our own Nation and the people of Iraq in a time of such dire need. The consequences of walking away at this point are too great to fathom. We must maintain our resolve to follow through with our commitment to the people of Iraq and in the global fight to free ourselves from the grip and fear of terrorism.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, as the telecommunications industry takes leaps and bounds in pushing the innovation envelope, it is almost impossible for the Federal Government to keep pace. In fact, it is often times a detriment for the Government to preemptively legislate on an issue before we can either define it or grasp its impact. What we can do is to remove barriers to entry that currently exist, paving the way for new entrants to offer services benefiting this Nation. The legislation before us here today is a step in the direction of more choice and lower costs for American consumers. A national cable franchise will streamline the current process and allow faster entry into the marketplace for non-traditional cable providers providing real choice for all of our constituents. In my home State of Indiana, legislation was enacted earlier this year, streamlining the process by which cable providers could offer service. Already, investment is coming to the heartland--millions of dollars is being plugged into our economy by companies laying fiber, offering different services, leading to more jobs in Indiana. Let's also talk about the smaller companies in my district, and across Indiana, who now are free from barriers to entry so they can begin to offer cable services to compete with larger companies. Who is the winner in the end? Our constituents, our economy, our innovators. I thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton for their leadership, along with my colleague, Mr. Rush, from Chicago, and others. This came out of the subcommittee 27-4, a majority of the minority Democrats of the full committee supported this legislation. So this is an overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation that is very exciting for the American people because it outlines the principles of free, open, market competition. It continues to spawn the technological renaissance that will benefit consumers and lower price. We are talking about things today that weren't even around when we did the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Telephony? IPTV? We didn't even know those terms. As a matter of fact, when compression technology came along, we thought the future in 1996 was about voice. We got it wrong. It is about voice, video, and data, and that is what we have today on these cell phones. So when we talk about delivering of video services, the landscaped has changed. Congress has to change. We need to get out of the way. We need to deregulate. If you have to regulate, do so on parity and be technologically neutral. I commend the chairman. I do not support the Markey amendment. Mandated neutrality standards do nothing more than squelch innovation, stifle competition and undermine broadband deployment. Anytime the government attempts to legislate a ``potential'' problem it ends up either, at best in years of litigation, and at worst with a regulatory framework that does nothing to help this country. Currently, at great expense, large and small companies across the country have invested billions of dollars to lay fiber in an effort to provide wanted services to their consumers. Any attempt for government to then restrict their ability to potentially charge for the use of these pipelines acts as a disincentive to continue to deploy, or maintain current access. Even now, consumers choose different tiers of access to the Internet--I don't see how it can be fair to charge the same rate to one consumer who merely wants to use the internet for sending and receiving emails and another who is actively downloading a multitude of songs, videos, and television shows. The same goes for web sites that demand the use of large amounts of data, such as a video sharing site, or a music download site. In an effort to provide the fastest and most efficient service, should we be blind to those who paid and labored to place the fiber in the ground? It seems inequitable and counterintuitive to the pro-market principles from which this nation has benefited.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a fellow comrade of mine, a former Army captain.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in great anticipation that we will pass H.R. 5037, as amended, and send the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act to the President for his signature by Memorial Day. Each family of the United States military now attends to their loved ones funeral with a wrenching worry that it will be met possibly with a protest or a demonstration. With the approach of our Nation's annual day of remembrance, it is altogether fitting that we approve this bill to protect the sanctity of our military funerals at our national cemeteries and Arlington National Cemetery. H.R. 5037, as amended, reflects a compromise agreement with the Senate that would prohibit demonstrations taking place within 150 feet of a road, pathway or other routes of ingress or egress from the national cemeteries and Arlington National Cemetery 60 minutes before and 60 minutes after the military funeral. On May 9 the House voted 408-3 to pass H.R. 5037, thus demonstrating overwhelming bipartisan support for protecting military funerals. This bill does not unconstitutionally draw distinctions on what demonstrations are and are not allowed based on the content of the speech. It would not interfere with the VA Secretary's existing ability to regulate on VA property other conduct that is not specifically referenced in this legislation. Penalties associated with the violations of this legislation are fair and proportionate. A violation would be a class A misdemeanor under title 18 of the United States Code and result in fines of up to $100,000 and imprisonment of not more than one year or both. The penalty balances proportionality with the need for deterrence that has been demonstrated in outrageous disruptions that we as a Nation can no longer tolerate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 5037, as amended, is well-considered legislation that carefully follows the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals precedents. We have worked also cooperatively with the White House on this bill, and I would like to specifically thank Alex Mistri for his hard work. I thank the chief sponsors of the bill, Mr. Rogers of Michigan and Sylvestre Reyes of Texas, my comrade in arms, and Joe Baca, a veteran, Jeff Miller of Florida, as well as our colleagues in the United States Senate, namely, Senators Graham and Chambliss, Senator Frist, Senator Vitter, Jim Inhofe, Larry Craig, the ranking member Daniel Akaka, for working with all of us to ensure that families contending with this most painful of tragedies does not face the sights and sounds of hateful disruption. I also want to take this moment to thank Chairman James Sensenbrenner and the ranking member, John Conyers, of the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman Steve Chabot and Ranking Member Jerry Nadler on the Subcommittee on the Constitution for their cooperation and assistance on the bill's drafting and the constitutional considerations. I agree with the comment earlier of Mr. Rogers of Michigan that the Founders created this bicameral legislature to make things very difficult and challenging. When you look back, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we conducted our hearing back on April 6. We brought this legislation, after careful consideration, to the floor on May 9. It was sent over to the Senate. They worked their magic. They improved the bill. We bring it back and adopt it; and, hopefully, the President signs this into law Memorial Day. That is good work. That is the bipartisan cooperation that we have, and it is necessary to move veterans legislation. I also want to take this moment to thank the National Commander Jeff Brown of the Patriot Guard Riders. These are individuals that saw an injustice and said that we will not permit people to dance on sacred ground and we will not wait for the government to act. We will defend these families and set the standards of dignity in our country with regard to military funerals. I thank them. They have over 33,000 riders on motorcycles. When one of our soldiers falls, they grab the guidon and the American flag and they take on a mission, and the mission is to protect these military families. Well, it is also now our responsibility to help these Patriot Riders to set forth a law so that they will not interfere with our VA national cemeteries and Arlington National Cemetery. This is the right thing to do. So I ask my colleagues to support this legislation to preserve the sanctity of our patriots' funerals at our national cemeteries and Arlington and to ensure that the only sound echoing over a grieving family are the bugler's notes, calling upon us to remember a life well- lived and a Nation well-served. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5037) to amend titles 38 and 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain demonstrations at cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington National Cemetery, and for other purposes.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer this statement in support of S. 1235, as amended, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. Working together with the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we have reached a compromise that will provide significant improvements in veterans' benefits, for those who have served this country and for those who will follow in their footsteps. Under title one, this bill will increase the flexibility enjoyed by the Adapted Housing Grant Program and the Native American Home Loan Program. I commend Mr. Boozman and Ms. Herseth for their leadership in originally introducing these provisions, in H.R. 3665 and H.R. 1773, respectively. As they return home to convalesce from medical care, many injured or wounded servicemembers spend time in a family member's home before returning to their own home. This legislation authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to equip a family member's home with necessary adaptive equipment. Further, it provides a partial adaptive housing allowance grant of between $2,000 and $14,000 to accomplish that adaptation. This bill also helps Native American veterans and their families by making it easier for them to own their own home. We do that by making permanent a housing loan pilot program for Native American veterans and extend eligibility for Native American loans to non-native American veterans who are spouses of a Native American and who have a meaningful interest in the property under tribal law. We also increase the maximum loan amount available on tribal lands from $80,000 to the maximum limit used for Freddie Mac loans, now over $417,00. Finally, under title one, we authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prescribe annual rate adjustment caps for VA's hybrid adjustable rate mortgage loans, thus bringing these ARMs into line with the mortgage industry and enhancing their value on the secondary market. Mr. Speaker, title two of the bill would migrate some of the sunsetted President's National Hire Veterans Committee duties to the Veterans' Employment and Training Service of the Assistant Secretary of Labor. Further, to improve employer outreach, the bill modifies membership and duties to the Department of Labor's newly named Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment, Training and Outreach. Title two also reauthorizes the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program for fiscal years 2007 through 2009, retaining the maximum authorization of $50 million per year. Winning the fight against homelessness means finding homeless veterans good jobs, and that is what this program, managed by the Department of Labor, is intended to do. It is therefore a critical component of our program to end chronic homelessness among veterans. Members of the Reserve and National Guard today play roles of unprecedented importance in our national security and must be accorded commensurate protections. In provisions originally introduced by H.R. 2046, which I sponsored, title three of the bill increases job security among veterans by improving the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act, SCRA, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, USERRA. Servicemembers who are activated and drop their commercial health insurance are now entitled to reinstatement of that policy upon their return from active duty. This bill prohibits premium increases after reinstatement other than such increases charged by that insurer for other policy holders similarly covered. Some reservists choose to enroll in TRICARE before they are activated, for example in anticipation of activation; and S. 1235 as amended preserves their reinstatement rights under the provision detailed in the preceding paragraph, even if they ultimately do not serve on active duty. Section 301 of the bill would, until September 30, 2011, double to 2 years the provision of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage free of charge when a member is rated totally disabled at separation. From October 2001 forward, the limit will be 18 months of free SGLI coverage. Former prisoners of war experience great hardships that often manifest themselves in ailments years after interment. Section 401 of the bill would codify the VA's June 2005 regulation that added heart disease and ensuing complications, as well as stroke, to those diseases presumptively service-connected for former prisoners of war who were captive for at least 30 days. Outreach to veterans is a perennial criticism leveled at VA by the Congress. Veterans cannot access benefits they don't know about. This bill will increase accountability by causing outreach activities to be collected into a discrete chapter of title 38, facilitating management and oversight of outreach and require VA to prepare a biennial outreach plan and report to Congress on its performance of that plan every two years. Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank Ranking Member Lane Evans, Chairman Boozman, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Berkley, and Ranking Member Herseth for their work bringing in this legislation to the Congress an ultimately to the cause of service to our veterans. I also recognize my counterpart, Senator Larry Craig, chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Ranking Member Akaka, for their leadership on this important legislation.

Mr. BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, today marks the change of command for one of the finest Chiefs ever to command the United States' Army Reserve. James Ronald Helmly, born 25 September 1947, to John James Helmly and Geneva Maxine Slover, grew up in Savannah, Georgia. Ron Helmly attended high school in Savannah, where he enrolled in the Junior ROTC program. He did very well academically in school and played football and baseball. Though he had an academic scholarship, he found he missed military structure (from ROTC) and took the West Point entrance examination. Circumstances prevailed that saw Helmly leave Armstrong State College and enlist in the Army in 1966, attending Basic Training at Fort Gordon, Georgia. He completed his Advanced Individual Training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and transferred to the Infantry Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, Georgia, because of the delay in getting a slot in the Engineer officer program. Following school, he received his commission as a second lieutenant and went on to complete the Basic Airborne course. In September 1967, Helmly joined Company B, 3d Battalion (Airborne), 187th Infantry, 101st Airborne Division, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, as a platoon leader and then went to Vietnam where he says the experience shaped the outlook of his entire life and gave him a fundamental love of soldiers. His Vietnam experience provided him with essential lessons about the need for good leadership and selecting people of good character and disposition, as well as professional preparedness in positions of leadership. He learned the importance of soldiers and leaders having self-confidence and training to standard. Helmly continued to serve on Active Duty from 1966 to 1973 in a variety of company- and battalion-level assignments, to include another tour in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division and command of an infantry company in Panama. It was during his time on active duty that Helmly met Maria Glasbrenner, the daughter of a retired Army sergeant major. They married on 6 March 1970, just before Helmly left for his second tour in Vietnam. They have two daughters and three grandchildren. As an Army Reserve Soldier, Lieutenant General Helmly has held logistics and operations positions in the 87th Maneuver Area Command and the 81st Army Reserve Command (ARCOM). He commanded the 352nd Maintenance Battalion in Macon, GA, and the 449th Area Support Group in Forest Park, GA. He was also the Deputy Chief of Staff for Training and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the 81st ARCOM. He served as the Deputy Chief, Army Reserve, Washington, DC, from June 1995 to June 1999. From June 1999 to August 1999, he served as the commander of the joint task force conducting Operation PROVIDE REFUGE at Fort Dix, NJ. Until taking command of the 78th Division in May 2001, he was the Military Assistant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (Individual Mobilization Augmentee), Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC, from October 1999 to May 2001. LG James R. Helmly was confirmed by the U.S. Senate for promotion to lieutenant general and appointment as the Chief, Army Reserve, March 21, 2002. He took command of the U.S. Army Reserve Command on May 3, 2002, and became the Chief, Army Reserve, on May 25, 2002. His promotion to three-star rank was effective on May 25, 2002. During his tenure as Chief of the Army Reserve he managed the mobilization of more than 147,000 Army Reserve soldiers in support of the Global War on Terror. General Helmly increased Reserve units and soldiers' readiness by having developed a progressive and cyclic training strategy that prioritized resources and managed readiness levels, improved facilities, adapted training to ever changing battlefield conditions, and streamlined Command and Control of the Army Reserve Forces. His military education includes the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Command and General Staff College, the Armed Forces Staff College and the Army War College. He has a bachelor's degree in liberal studies from the State University of New York in Albany. Among his numerous awards and decorations are the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star with Valor Device and three Oak Leaf Clusters, Meritorious Service Medal with silver Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Commendation Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Combat Infantryman Badge, Parachutist Badge, Army Staff Identification Badge and Ranger Tab. He was inducted into the Infantry Hall of Fame in 1996. General Helmly will continue his fine tradition of success as he begins his assignment in Islamabad, Pakistan, as the Chief Office of Defense Representative.