Jeff Miller

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1235, as amended, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006. S. 1235, as amended, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, reflects a compromise agreement that has been reached by the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the following bills: S. 1235, as amended, which passed the Senate on September 28, 2005; H.R. 1220, as amended, which passed the House on July 13, 2005; H.R. 2046, as amended, which passed the House on May 23, 2005; and H.R. 3665, as amended, which passed the House on November 10, 2005. Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record for the benefit of my colleagues a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body. Explanatory Statement on Amendment to Senate Bill, S. 1235, as Amended S. 1235, as amended, the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, reflects a Compromise Agreement reached by the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs (the Committees) on the following bills reported during the 109th Congress: S. 1235, as amended (Senate Bill), H.R. 1220, as amended, H.R. 2046, as amended, and H.R. 3665, as amended (House Bills). S. 1235, as amended, passed the Senate on September 28, 2005; H.R. 2046, as amended, passed the House on May 23, 2005; H.R. 3665, as amended, passed the House on November 10, 2005. The Committees have prepared the following explanation of S. 1235, as further amended to reflect a compromise agreement between the Committees (Compromise Agreement). Differences between the provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provision of the Senate Bill and the House Bills are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying changes. title i--housing matters Adapted Housing Assistance for Disabled Veterans Residing in Housing Owned by Family Member Current Law.--Chapter 21 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to adapt or acquire suitable housing for certain severely disabled veterans. The grant amounts are limited to $50,000 for severely disabled veterans with impairments of locomotion or loss of function of both arms described in section 2101(a) of title 38, United States Code, and $10,000 to severely disabled veterans with loss of vision or loss of function of both hands as described in section 2101(b) of title 38, United States Code. Currently a veteran may receive a grant for specially adapted housing only once. However, a veteran who has qualified for the smaller grant may nonetheless receive a higher grant if disabilities under that provision later develop. Senate Bill.--The Senate Bill contains no comparable provision. House Bills.--Section 101 (a) through (e) of H.R. 3665, as amended, would amend chapter 21 of title 38, United States Code, by inserting a new section 2102A. Subparagraph (a) would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a program providing a partial adapted housing grant to severely injured veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member. Subparagraph (b) would authorize the Secretary to provide up to a $10,000 grant for such veterans with disabilities involving impairments of locomotion and up to a $2,000 grant for such veterans with visual impairments or loss of function of both hands. Subparagraph (c) would limit the assistance to one family residence. Subparagraph (d) would require the Secretary to issue relevant regulations. Finally, subparagraph (e) would limit the program to 5 years after enactment. Section 101(b) of H.R. 3665, as amended, would amend section 2102 of title 38, United States Code, to allow a veteran to receive no more than three grants of assistance under chapter 21 of title 8, United States Code. The total value of all grants would not exceed $50,000 for the most severely disabled veterans and $10,000 for less severely disabled veterans. However, a veteran who receives a grant under section 2102(b) of title 38, United States Code, would still be allowed to receive grants under section 2102(a) of title 38, United States Code, if he or she becomes eligible. Section 101(c) would amend chapter 21 of title 38, United States Code, by adding at the end a new section 2107 to provide that the Secretary shall coordinate the administration of programs to provide specially adapted housing that are administered by both the Under Secretary for Health and the Under Secretary for Benefits under chapters 17, 21, and 31 of title 38, United States Code. Compromise Agreement.--Section 101 of the Compromise Agreement generally follows the House language except in the case of veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member, veterans with disabilities involving impairments of locomotion may receive up to $14,000. Section 101 would also increase the funding fee for a subsequent use of the VA home loan guaranty with no money down by 5 basis points for the period October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007. Adjustable Rate Mortgages Current Law.--Section 3707A(c)(4) of title 38, United States Code, limits the maximum increase or decrease of any single annual interest rate adjustment after the initial contract interest rate adjustment to 1 percentage point. Senate Bill.--Section 201 of the Senate Bill would give VA the flexibility to prescribe an appropriate annual rate adjustment cap for VA hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans with an initial rate of interest fixed for 5 or more years. House Bills.--The House Bills contain no comparable provision. Compromise Agreement.--Section 102 of the Compromise Agreement follows the Senate language. Permanent Authority To Make Direct Housing Loans to Native American Veterans Current Law.--Section 3761 of title 38, United States Code, establishes a pilot program to make direct housing loans to Native American veterans for homes on tribal lands. The authorization expires on December 31, 2008. Section 3762 of title 38, United States Code, describes the administration of the program and limits the maximum loan amount to $80,000, unless the Secretary allows a larger amount due to higher housing costs in a particular geographic area. Senate Bill.--Section 203 of the Senate Bill contains a similar provision. House Bills.--Section 102 of H.R. 3665, as amended, would make permanent the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program. It would also limit the Secretary's discretion in approving a loan large than $80,000 to the loan limitation amount provided by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a single-family residence. Compromise Agreement.--Section 103 of the Compromise Agreement follows the House language. Extension of Eligibility for Direct Loans for Native American Veterans to a Veteran Who Is The Spouse of a Native American Current Law.--Section 3761 of title 38, United States Code, limits loans under the Native American Home Loan Program to veterans who are Native Americans. Under current law, a veteran residing on tribal lands with a Native American spouse is not eligible to receive a home loan under this program. Senate Bill.--The Senate Bill contains no comparable provision. House Bills.--Section 103 of H.R. 3665, as amended, would extend eligibility for the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program to non-Native American veterans who are spouses of Native American eligible to be housed on tribal land. The non-Native American veteran must be able to acquire a meaningful interest in the property under tribal law. Compromise Agreement.--Section 104 of the Compromise Agreement follows the House language. Technical Corrections to Veterans' Benefit Improvement Act of 2004 Current Law.--Section 2101 of title 38, United States Code, provides for grants to adapt or acquire suitable housing for certain severely disabled veterans. Section 401 of Public Law 108-183 amended section 2101 to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide adapted housing assistance to certain disabled servicemembers who have not yet been processed for discharge from military service, but who will qualify for the benefit upon discharge due to the severity of their disabilities. However, this provision was inadvertently omitted from section 2101 of title 38, United States Code when changes to that section were made by P.L. 108-454. Senate Bill.--Section 202 of S. 1235 would amend section 2101 of title 38, United States Code, to reinstate the authority of the Secretary to provide adapted housing assistance to certain members of the armed services and make other conforming amendments. The amendments made by this provision would take effect on December 10, 2004, immediately after the enactment of Public Law 108-454. House Bill.--Section 4 of H.R. 2046, as amended, contains a similar provision. Compromise Agreement.--Section 105 of the Compromise Agreement contains this provision. title ii--employment matters Additional Duty for the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training To Raise Awareness of Skills of Veterans and of the Benefits of Hiring Veterans Current Law.--Subsection (b) of section 4102A of title 38, United States Code, describes the duties to be carried out by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training. Senate Bill.--The Senate Bill contains no comparable provision. House Bills.--Section 202(a) of H.R. 3665, as amended, would add a new duty for the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training (ASVET) under section 4102A of title 38, United States Code, to furnish information to employers (through meetings with hiring executive of corporations and otherwise) concerning the training and skills of veterans and disabled veterans, and the advantages of hiring veterans. The ASVET would also be required to facilitate employment of veterans and disabled veterans through participation in labor exchanges (Internet-based and otherwise), and by other means. Section 202(b) of H.R. 3665, as amended, would require the Secretary of Labor, acting through the ASVET, to develop a transition plan for the ASVET to assume certain duties and functions of the President's National Hire Veterans Committee and transmit the plan to the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees not later than July 1, 2006. Compromise Agreement.--Section 201 of the Compromise Agreement generally follows the House language, but does not include the requirement that the Secretary of Labor develop and transmit a transition plan. Modifications to the Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training Current Law.--Section 4110 of title 38, United States Code, establishes the Advisory Committee on Veterans employment and Training, its membership, and its duties. The Advisory Committee advises the ASVET on the employment and training needs of veterans and how the Department of Labor is meeting those needs. No outreach efforts are required of the Advisory Committee in current law. Senate Bill.--The Senate Bill contains no comparable provision. House Bills.--Section 203(a) of H.R. 3665, as amended, would amend section 4110 of title 38, United States Code, by renaming the ``Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment and Training'' to ``Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment, Training, and Employer Outreach''. Section 203(b) would modify the duties of the Advisory Committee to include assisting and advising the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training (ASVET) in carrying out outreach to employers. Section 203(c) would modify the membership of the Advisory Committee to include representatives from the National Society of Human Resource Managers, The Business Roundtable, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, a nationally recognized labor union or organization, veterans service organizations that have a national employment program, and recognized authorities in the fields of business, employment, training, rehabilitation, or labor. Section 203(c) would also retain six nonvoting ex officio members of the Advisory Committee: Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Secretary of Defense, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration. Setion 203(d) of H.R. 3665, as amended, would require the Advisory Committee to submit a report to the Secretary of Labor on the employment and training needs of veterans for the previous fiscal year. The report would include a description of the activities of the Advisory Committee during that fiscal year as well as suggested outreach activities to be carried out by the Secretary of Labor to employers with respect to the training and skills of veterans and the advantage afforded employers by hiring veterans. Compromise Agreement.--Section 202 of the Compromise Agreement follows the House language. Reauthorization of Appropriations for Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs Current Law.--Section 2021 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes appropriations for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Programs (HVRP) through fiscal year 2006. Senate Bill.--The Senate Bill contains no comparable provision. House Bills.--Section 301 of H.R. 3665, as amended, would reauthorize HVRP for fiscal years 2007 through 2009, and retain the maximum authorization of $50 million per year. Compromise Agreement.--Section 203 of the Compromise Agreement follows the House language.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate bill 1235, as amended.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Opponents of the Putnam-Capps amendment say that the underlying language does nothing to hurt the readiness of our military here in the United States, and I can say that that is 100 percent wrong. This map is the eastern Gulf of Mexico off the State of Florida. This is a joint test range that extends from the panhandle of Florida all the way to Key West. Let me tell you, the Air Force uses this for live fire. Live fire. And the Navy uses the gulf ranges to predeploy certification and to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles from submarines. Now, I want to read you a list, if I can, which is just a sampling of some of the future and current missions conducted in the eastern Gulf of Mexico: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial training and live fire; the F-22 pilot upgrade training, including the AMRAAM live fire; Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submerged vessels; testing of Small Diameter Bomb program against man-made targets in the Gulf of Mexico; F-16 weapons system testing and evaluation; air dominance munitions; unmanned combat air vehicles; directed energy weapons and classified programs. Now, the former commander of the Air Armament Center, Major General Robert W. Chedister, said last August: ``Clearly, structures associated with oil and gas production are totally incompatible with, and would have a significant impact on, the mission activity in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.'' The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote: ``Areas east of 86/41, which is the military mission line, commonly known as the mission line, are critical to DOD.'' He went on to say: ``In these areas east of the military mission line, drilling structures and associated development would be incompatible with military activities, such as missile flights, low-flying drone aircraft, and weapons testing and training.'' Now, let me show you where that military mission line is. The underlying language in this bill would open the door to drilling in the entire Joint Gulf Range and is completely incompatible with the military mission of our Air Force and our Navy. We cannot allow this area to be impacted.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. You have heard a lot tonight about the potential environmental impacts, but let me just draw to your attention the issue as it affects our national defense. Looks pretty cluttered, but this is a test range for Eglin Air Force Base where they do weapons testing from the panhandle of Florida all the way to the Florida Keys. This red line right in here is a military mission line. Basically, the Air Force says, the Secretary of Defense has said, the Navy has said that anything that is east, anything that is east of that military mission line is incompatible with the mission at Eglin Air Force Base. There is live fire testing. We are not just practicing out there. This is not Top Gun flying airplanes around. These are new weapons systems, classified new weapons systems that are being tested over the Gulf of Mexico. Yes, the beaches of Florida are a national treasure, but I can tell you from a national defense standpoint, this entire area of the extreme eastern Gulf of Mexico is a national treasure because there is no other weapons testing area like it in the country or in the world. Opponents of the Putnam amendment say that the underlying language does nothing to hurt the readiness of our military. Well that is 100 percent wrong! As you can see from this map, the Joint Gulf Test Range extends from the Panhandle of Florida to Key West. The Air Force uses this area for Live Fire testing and evaluation of weapons systems. The Navy uses the Gulf Ranges to do predeployment certifications and to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles from submarines. Let me read you a list of just a sampling of current and future missions that are conducted in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training and live fire F/A-22 pilot upgrade training including AMRAAM live fire Tomahawk Cruise Missile launch from submerged vessels Testing of Small Diameter Bomb program against man-made targets in the Gulf F-16 weapons systems testing and evaluation, U.S. Navy predeployment certification, testing and development of hypersonic munitions, low-cost miniature cruise missiles, Air-Dominance munitions, unmanned combat air vehicles, Directed Energy weapons, and classified programs. The Commander of the Air Armament Center, Major General Robert W. Chedister, said last August ``Clearly, structures associated with oil/ gas production are totally incompatible with, and would have a significant impact on, the mission activity in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Accordingly, it is absolutely `visceral' that the vast water area encompassed by the Gulf be preserved in order for us to continue to serve the needs of national defense.'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently wrote ``areas east of the 86 deg.41' line in the Gulf of Mexico commonly known as the `military mission line' are specially critical to DoD.'' He went on to say ``In those areas east of the military mission line drilling structures and associated development would be incompatible with military activities, such as missile flights, low-flying drone aircraft, weapons testing, and training.'' Now let me show you where this mission line is. The underlying language in this bill would open the door to drilling in the entire Joint Gulf Range and is completely incompatible with the military mission of our Air Force and Navy.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my unwavering support for H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill. The rights of free speech and expression under the Constitution's First Amendment are not absolute, and there are many U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting and explaining the right and its limits. As Chairman Buyer explained, there are several judicial precedents which make clear that H.R. 5037 is constitutional. On April 6, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, the subcommittee I chair, took testimony on this bill. Said David Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, in written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee: ``There are thus two constitutional issues to be confronted: (1) Does the ban on ``certain'' demonstrations meet the requirement of First Amendment law as laid down in Supreme Court precedents, and (2) Is the discretion lodged in the cemetery superintendent to permit exceptions fall within an acceptable constitutional range? I conclude that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative and that the bill is well within constitutional limits. Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Forte's statement be included in the Congressional Record. I have visited the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq several times over the years. While always moving and inspiring experiences, one time in particular stands out. It was September 2003 and we were preparing to return to the States. After quite a wait, we were told that they were loading onto the plane the casket of Sergeant Trevor Blumberg, and we would be leaving Baghdad with his body. I have had few honors as great as that one. I am pleased to say that Mrs. Blumberg has since contacted Representative Rogers' office to express her and her husband's support for this bill. Our Nation's veterans have made the ultimate sacrifice, and it is appalling to see and hear their military service being derided. Unfortunately, throughout the country, that is indeed what is happening and it must stop. I want to thank Mr. Rogers, Chairman Buyer, and Mr. Reyes for all their work in crafting this legislation and their continued dedication to the men and women of our armed forces. I would also like to recognize Mr. Paul Taylor and Ms. Hilary Funk, staff on the Judiciary. Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, for working so closely with my staff and me. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. Testimony of David F. Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University, in Support of H.R. 5037 Before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, Jeff Miller, Chairman, April 18, 2006 I. Introduction H.R. 5037, entitled the ``Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act,'' seeks to limit ``certain demonstrations'' in cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery. The bill defines what constitutes a demonstration disruptive of the memorial services or funerals being held in or within 500 feet of such cemeteries, but allows an exception for demonstrations on cemetery grounds if ``approved by the cemetery superintendent.'' There are thus two constitutional issues to be confronted: (1) Does the ban on ``certain'' demonstrations meet the requirements of First Amendment law as laid down in Supreme Court precedents, and (2) Is the discretion lodged in the cemetery superintendent to permit exceptions fall within an acceptable constitutional range? I conclude that the answer to both questions is in the affirmative and that the bill is well within constitutional limits. II. The Ban on Demonstrations Demonstrations are a form of expressive conduct. In all governmental restrictions on expressive conduct, Supreme Court jurisprudence requires application of the O'Brien test, United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) or of the ``time, place, and manner'' test. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). The Court has declared that both tests have similar standards. Clark v. Community for Creative Non- Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984). Under the O'Brien test, ``a governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.'' 391 U.S. at 376. Under the ``time, place, and manner'' test, government regulations of expressive conduct are valid ``provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open alternative channels for communication of the information.'' Clark, 468 U.S. at 293. It is clear from the text of H.R. 5037 that the purpose of the bill is to assure the dignity of funerals or memorial services held in honor of our fallen dead by preventing demonstrations that are disruptive of those ceremonies. To that end, the bill delineates what kind of demonstrations shall be prohibited, viz, a demonstration within five hundred feet of a cemetery in which a funeral or memorial service is to be held if the demonstration takes place within a time period from 60 minutes before until 60 minutes after the funeral or memorial service. Furthermore, the bill requires that only those demonstrations in which a ``noise or diversion'' is willfully made and ``that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral service or memorial service or ceremony'' shall be prohibited. Maintaining cemeteries for veterans is clearly within the constitutional power of government. It is also clear that, under 38 U.S.C. sect. 2403, the purpose of maintaining cemeteries ``as a tribute to our gallant dead'' is an important or substantial governmental interest. It is similarly evident from the text of the bill that its purpose is to prevent conduct that is intentionally disruptive of a funeral or memorial service without reference to the content of the expressive conduct. The text does not ban accidental noises present in our modern society near to many cemeteries, such as traffic or the sounds of children playing. Nor does it ban only demonstrations with a particular kind of message. A demonstration connected with a labor dispute that is disruptive of a funeral is as violative of the law as would be an anti-war demonstration or a ``support our troops'' march. Finally, ``the incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance'' of the interest of maintaining the dignity of a funeral for our fallen dead. Demonstrations 60 minutes before or 60 minutes after the ceremony are permitted. Even during the period in which a ceremony is being held, a demonstration beyond 500 feet of the cemetery is permitted. This is no blanket ban at all. The fact that H.R. 5037 prohibits disruptive demonstrations on grounds that are not part of a national cemetery finds support in Supreme Court precedent. The case of Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) is directly on point. In Grayned, the Supreme Court upheld an antinoise ordinance, which read: ``No person, while on public or private grounds adjacent to any building in which a school or any class thereof is in session, shall willfully make or assist in the making on any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such school session or class thereof.'' 408 U.S. at 107-08. It is axiomatic in our legal tradition that the state may take reasonable steps to abate a nuisance that may emanate from private property. What H.R. 5037 does is to abate a nuisance that would disturb the good order of a federally mandated activity in our national cemeteries, namely, to provide memorial services and ceremonies that are ``a tribute to our gallant dead.'' It should be noted that in Grayned, the Supreme Court held that the antinoise ordinance was good against claims of overbreadth or vagueness. H.R. 5037's prohibition on ``willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral or memorial service or ceremony'' tracks the language approved by the Court in Grayned. Furthermore, the language of H.R. 5037 finds support in the case of Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988). In the case, the Supreme Court reviewed a District of Columbia law that made it unlawful to display any sign that brought a foreign government into ``public odium'' or ``public disrepute'' within 500 feet of an embassy, and which banned ``congregating'' within 500 feet of an embassy. The Court struck down the ban on displaying a sign critical of a foreign government, but upheld the ban on congregating if, as construed by the lower courts, the congregation was ``directed at a foreign embassy.'' H.R. 5037 bans only those demonstrations within 500 feet of a cemetery that are intentionally disruptive of ceremonies or funerals within national cemeteries. The disruptive requirement does not need judicial construction. It is made in the terms of the statute and is fully supported by the decision in Boos v. Barry. Under H.R. 5037, a person who displays ``any placard, banner, flag, or similar device, unless the display is part of a funeral or memorial service or ceremony,'' and such a display causes a ``diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the good order of the funeral or memorial service'' is subject to the law. This prohibition is closely akin to the focused picketing ordinance upheld by the Supreme Court in Frisby v. Schultz, 484 U.S. 474 (1988). That ordinance banned picketing ``before and about'' any residence. Although in most public areas, people may picket and expostulate even though others may object to the message, in certain areas the functioning of the forum takes precedence, provided there are alternative ways the protestor may express his message. Schools are one forum whose functioning may not be disturbed or diverted. Grayned. The home is another place. Justice O'Connor noted that the picketers could still march through the neighborhood to express their opposition to abortion and abortionists. They simply could not disrupt the ``tranquility'' of a doctor's home. 484 U.S. at 484. Similarly, in H.R. 5037, the bill seeks to protect the tranquility and dignity of a memorial service. It allows the picketer or demonstrator to display whatever kind of sign or device he wishes one hour before or one hour after the ceremony, or at any time if more than 500 feet distant from the cemetery, even if it offends those who may be traveling to the ceremony. If, however, a person displays ``any placard, banner, flag, or similar device, unless the display is part of a funeral or memorial service or ceremony,'' and the display occurs within a cemetery, there is no requirement in the bill that it be part of a disruptive demonstration. But in that case, the display does not take place in a traditional public forum, such as a public sidewalk, but rather within a non-public forum dedicated to honoring our veterans. In that situation, the ban is a reasonable, and thereby a valid, restriction in a non-public forum designed to preserve the appropriate functioning of the forum, i.e., a national cemetery. I discuss the law applying to non-public forums in Part III below. Thus, under either the O'Brien test or under the time, place and manner test, the statute is drawn to be within Constitutional standards. Nonetheless, I find one phrase in the bill puzzling. Under section (b)(2), a demonstration is defined as ``Any oration, speech, use of sound amplification equipment or device, or similar conduct before an assembled group of people that is not part of a funeral or memorial service or ceremony.'' (emphasis added) It would see that a single individual with a bullhorn who disrupts a ceremony might not be covered under this section. Thus, I do not see the use of the phrase ``before an assembled group of people.'' In any event, with such a phrase, the restriction on expressive conduct is even less than would be permitted to be under the Constitution. III. The discretion of the cemetery superintendent It is a central canon of our First Amendment jurisprudence that permission to engage in expressive conduct cannot be left to the unbridled discretion of a governmental official. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988). Such a discretion carries with it the dangers of prior restraint, vagueness, overbreadth, and content and viewpoint discrimination. Section (a)(1) of H.R. 5037 prohibits demonstrations in cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or in Arlington National Cemetery ``unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent.'' Nonetheless, I do not believe that this section permits unbridled discretion in the cemetery superintendent. Rather, I think that his discretion is well- cabined within and defined by the administrative function the law places upon the cemetery superintendent. A case directly on point is Griffin v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Some veterans were not permitted under federal regulations from placing a Confederate flag at a national cemetery. Placing a flag was interpreted as a forbidden demonstration under 38 C.F.R., sect. 1.218(a)(14). Subsection (i) declares in part, ``[A]ny service, ceremony, or demonstration, except as authorized by the head of the facility or designee, is prohibited.'' Petitioners asserted that the section gave unconstitutional discretion to the administrator of the facility. In Griffin, the Federal Circuit Court pointed out that cemeteries are non-public forums the regulations of which are subject only to a reasonable basis test. However, although the government may limit the content of expression in non- public forums, it may not engage in viewpoint discrimination. The question was whether the discretion given by the law to the cemetery's administrator brought with it the danger of viewpoint discrimination. After all, a Confederate flag carries a different viewpoint from the Stars and Stripes. The Federal Circuit found that the Supreme Court had applied the viewpoint discrimination doctrine only in traditional public forums or in designated public forums. 288 F.3d at 1321. The court zeroed in on the relevant variable in this kind of case: ``We are obliged to examine the nature of the forum because the restrictions in nonpublic fora may be reasonable if they are aimed at preserving the property for the purpose to which it is dedicated.'' 288 F.3d at 1323. Finding that there was sufficient Supreme Court support, citing United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990), the Federal Circuit upheld the discretion lodged in the cemetery's administrator ``when such discretion is necessary to preserve the function and character of the forum.'' 288 F.3d at 1323. The purpose of many non-public forums is normative and preserving the function of that forum may entail restricting opposing normative viewpoints. Schools, for example, are nonpublic forums charged with developing students' character for participation as well-informed and well-developed citizens in our system of representative government. To that end, schools may insist that students observe rules of respect and avoid hateful or immoral language. A student with an opposite viewpoint who fails to observe the rules of respect and makes his point with crude language is not protected by the First Amendment. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1968). Accordingly, the superintendent of a national cemetery is charged with maintaining the cemetery and its activities ``as a tribute to our gallant dead.'' Under H.R. 5037 he is granted reasonable discretion to assure that all activities within the cemetery accord with its lawfully stated purpose. He may permit ceremonies or demonstrations or signs or programs that accord with such purpose and forbid those that do not. In doing so, the restriction imposed is ``reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view.'' 288 F.3d at 1321, citing, Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Del & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985). IV. Conclusion H.R. 5037 is a well-crafted bill that seeks to maintain the decorum necessary to honor our veterans and those who have died for our freedoms and who now rest in national cemeteries. I find that the bill's careful limitations on disruptive demonstrations and the limited discretion it gives to cemetery superintendents to be well with constitutional limits.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of renaming the Jordan Street Post Office in Pensacola to the Earl D. Hutto Post Office Building. Congressman Hutto represented the First Congressional District from 1978 to 1994. An interesting piece of trivia is that Mr. Hutto's initial congressional office was, in fact, temporarily located in what is now called the Jordan Street Post Office Building. Congressman Hutto's life is a tale of a man who has achieved the American Dream. Born into a poor, hardworking family in Midland City, Alabama, Earl was the first in his family to graduate from high school and to graduate from college. After several years in the broadcasting business and earning the nickname Captain Supreme from participating in an ice cream commercial, Congressman Hutto entered the life of public service. In 1972, he began his distinguished career in the Florida house of representatives, serving three terms there before running for the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1978, like all new Members of Congress in search of office space, Mr. Hutto was lucky enough to draw number 43 in the House lottery to choose his new office space. Drawing the slip of paper with a room on the fifth floor of Cannon on it, the next day the Pensacola News Journal, our home town newspaper, ran the headline, ``Hutto in Old Attic.'' Like many of us, his desk was here in Washington; however, his home and his heart were planted in Florida's gulf coast. Congressman Hutto quickly earned the respect of his peers and his colleagues in Washington with his commonsense and straightforward dealings on legislative matters. With a conservative home district, he was known by his constituents as a ``Boll Weevil,'' a group of fiscally and socially conservative Southern Democrats. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, he worked tirelessly for the benefit of our military men and women at home and overseas. Under his leadership, he helped create the U.S. Special Operations Command in which the Joint Special Operations University resides on Hurlburt Field in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Congressman Hutto learned early on with God and family as your moral compass, you cannot be steered wrong. As a family man, he is quick to credit his wife, Nancy, and his two daughters, Lori Hutto and Amy Stubblefield, for his accomplishments and strength of character. Congressman Hutto spent eight terms in the U.S. House before retiring in Pensacola. Today, he stays busy with his church, his Rotary Club, and participation on a number of charitable boards. He also sponsors golf tournaments to fund scholarship endowments at five area institutions through his foundation. As you can see, Mr. Hutto was and continues to be a trusted face and voice throughout northwest Florida. We are very fortunate to have such a distinguished gentleman with a genuine concern for local issues representing them in Washington, D.C. So on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to thank Earl Hutto for his 22 years of public service in the U.S. House of Representatives and wish him an early happy 80th birthday.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 58th birthday of the State of Israel. Israel is an important ally of the United States and like our great country, Israel was founded by people seeking freedom from religious persecution. This persecution came in the form of the Holocaust--one of the most heinous events in recent history. The United States recognized Israel within 11 minutes of its creation as an independent nation; however, not all developments in Israel's infancy as a nation were welcome. Attacked in 1948 from all sides by surrounding Arab nations, Israel defeated its enemies but soon learned it would have to develop as a democratic nation while vigilantly patrolling its borders for foreign invaders. In addition to being a picturesque country located on the Mediterranean Sea, Israel is home to many religious sites that are sacred to people of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faith. This concentration of Holy sites makes it all the more unfortunate that Israel and its people are the targets of so many terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, Israel and the United States have strong bilateral relations that I hope will continue to grow and strengthen in the years to come. I wish the people and the leaders of Israel best wishes, continued prosperity and a peaceful future.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a personal explanation of the reasons I missed rollcall votes Nos. 75-81 on March 30, 2006. I was down in my district on official business and unfortunately could not make it back in time for votes. If present, I would have voted: Rollcall vote No. 75, A motion to adopt the rule for H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 76, A motion to table the Pelosi Privileged Resolution, ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 77, Gohmert's Amendment to H.R. 609, to strike certain reporting requirements for colleges and universities within Sec. 131(f). The amendment also strikes Sec. 495(a)(1) that would allow States to apply to the Secretary of Education to become recognized accreditors, ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 78, Patrick Kennedy Amendment to H.R. 609, to make child and adolescent mental health professionals eligible for loan forgiveness for high need professions ``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 79, Steve King Amendment to H.R. 609, require institutions that receive any Federal funding whatsoever (including grants and scholarships) to submit to the U.S. Department of Education an annual report answering two questions. First, the report must state whether race, color, or national origin is considered in the student admissions process. If race, color, or national origin is considered in the student admissions process, then the report must contain a subsequent analysis of how these factors are considered in the process, ``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 80, G. Miller Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 609, to lower student loan interest rates; establish a new Predominantly Black Serving Institution program to boost college participation rates of low-income, black students; establish a new graduate Hispanic Serving Institution program; provide for year-round Pell grants; and repeal the Single Lender rule, ``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 81, Final Passage of H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, ``aye''.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness and honor that I rise today to recognize a true patriot, Vice Admiral Jack Fetterman, United States Navy, retired. Admiral Fetterman left us Friday night, March 24th. He was 73 years old. Vicki and I were saddened to learn of his passing and our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Nancy Glenn Austin and their two sons, John and Kevin. The Pensacola News Journal called him ``a tireless civic leader who dreamed big, never stopped working for Pensacola and always was thinking of how to make it a better place to live'' and I would add that few people have shown the perseverance, dedication and commitment to our community that he has shown. Admiral Fetterman was born in Ashland, Pennsylvania on 4 August 1932. He began college at Susquehana University, graduating from Albright College in 1954. He was commissioned an Ensign in the United States Navy in 1955 and was designated a naval aviator in 1956. Vice Admiral Fetterman's first operational tour was with Attack Squadron 105 at Cecil Field, Florida. Flying A-IH Skyraiders from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Essex (CVA-) in the Sixth and Seventh Fleets, he participated in both the Lebanon and Formosa crises in 1958. In October 1959, he reported to Fleet Airborne Electronics Training Unit Atlantic and served as Light Attack Nuclear Weapons Training Instructor. Following this tour, he reported to Attack Squadron 44 for A-4 Skyhawk replacement pilot training prior to joining the staff of the Commander Attack Carrier Air Wing 8 aboard the aircraft carrier USS Forestall (CVA-59). After tours at the Naval War College and Attack Squadron 44, Vice Admiral Fetterman reported to Attack Squadron 81 aboard the aircraft carrier Shangri-La (CV-38) where he served as maintenance officer during two Mediterranean deployments. A tour in Attack Squadron 174, where he served as Operations Officer, was followed by orders to Attack Squadron 87 as executive officer. In March 1972, while deployed in the Mediterranean aboard the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVA-4), Vice Admiral Fetterman assumed command of Attack Squadron EIGHTY-SEVEN's ``Golden Warriors.'' During this command tour, he was selected as team leader of a joint U.S. Navy and Air Force air-to-ground weapons team, which represented the United States in NATO competition in Greece. In March 1973, Vice Admiral Fetterman reported to the Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, D.C., where he served for two years as assistant director for the Navy Senate Liaison Office. In July 1975, he assumed command of Carrier Air Wing EIGHT aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68) and made deployments to the Caribbean, North Atlantic and Mediterranean. In January 1977, Vice Admiral Fetterman assumed command of the command ship USS La Salle (AGF03), flagship of Commander, Middle East Forces. In March 1978, he reported to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations where he served as Special Projects Manager of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces Expansion Program. In February 1979, Vice Admiral Fetterman assumed command of U.S. Naval Base, Naval Station, and Naval Air Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was selected for Rear Admiral in February 1981, and, in July, assumed duties as the Commander of Tactical Wings, Atlantic. In July 1983, he reported as Commander, Training Command, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. From May to December 1985, he served on the staff of Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command and U.S. Atlantic Fleet as Deputy Chief of Staff for Readiness and Resources. In December 1985, he assumed his duties as Naval Inspector General. On 1 September 1987, he was promoted to the rank of Vice Admiral and in August assumed the duties as Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. On 1 February 1991, he assumed the duties as Chief of Naval Education and Training. Vice Admiral Fetterman retired from active duty on 1 March 1993. His personal awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit (five awards), the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy Achievement Medal, and the Meritorious Unit commendation in addition to various campaign and service awards. During his naval career, Vice Admiral Fetterman accumulated 7,000 hours of flight time in 20 different aircraft and recorded 960 carrier landings. In November 1993, Vice Admiral Fetterman assumed his most recent position as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation. He served as Chairman of the Mayor's Community Core Values Board; the Board of Directors, EAA; Past Chairman of the Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce and Vice Chairman of Chamber Military Affairs; past Chairman of the USS Mitscher, USS Bonhomme Richard and USS Iwo Jima Commissioning Committees. While his Navy career was long and distinguished, Admiral Fetterman's post-Navy accomplishments and contributions to Northwest Florida were just as significant. He had the exceptional vision to look at the city of Pensacola and not see what it was, or what it is, rather, he saw what it could be. Mr. Speaker, Admiral Fetterman was a man of unquestionable character, unwavering resolve and unmatched determination. He represented everything that is great about Pensacola, our Nation and the United States Navy. His presence will be deeply missed, but his example will always be with us.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am proud to introduce H.R. 5038, the Veterans' Memorial Marker Act of 2006. The Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Shelley Berkley, joins me as an original cosponsor of this bill. H.R. 5038 would extend for 1 year the Department of Veterans Affairs' authority to provide a government marker for the marked grave of a veteran buried in a private cemetery. Under current law, this authority will expire on December 31, 2006. In addition, the bill would extend eligibility of this benefit to include deaths occurring on or after November 1, 1990. Currently, this benefit is only available for deaths occurring on or after September 11, 2001. This bill would also authorize the VA to provide a government marker or memorial headstone for eligible deceased dependent children whose remains are unavailable for burial. Today, the VA is only authorized to provide a marker or memorial headstone to commemorate a veteran or spouse whose remains are unavailable for burial. Mr. Speaker, the Nation owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women who served in the armed forces of the United States. This is but one way we can commemorate and memorialize their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a personal explanation of the reason I missed rollcall vote No. 56 on March 16, 2006. It was a Sabo amendment vote on H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. I was detained and could not make it to the floor for this vote. I respectfully request that it be entered into the Congressional Record that if present, I would have voted rollcall vote No. 56, the amendment increasing spending by $1.225 billion, increasing Customs and Border Protection by $700 million, Coast Guard Operating Expenses by $125 million, FEMA Regional Operations by $300 million, and FEMA Preparedness funding by $100 million, ``nay.''

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to rise today to recognize the retirement of John Thomas from the office of mayor of the city of Mary Esther, FL. Throughout his entire career, John has been unquestionably devoted to serving his country. In 1952, he joined the United States Air Force and began a career that would extend over 40 years. Through Air Force bases across the Nation and around the world, he was in charge of coordinating essential services for our soldiers, especially in the area of transportation. As the chief of services for a United States Air Force Base in Spain from 1989 to 1994, John aided his country in time of war as his base provided support to Operation Desert Storm 24 hours a day, seven days a week. After retiring from the Air Force in 1994, John and his wife returned to the United States and decided to take up residence in Mary Esther, a city in my district in Northwest Florida. Never tiring, John became involved with the City Council within 2 years, and shortly thereafter took over a vacated seat on the council. After an unsuccessful run for mayor of Mary Esther, John persisted and was elected to the mayor's office in 2000. For three terms, John Thomas served as the mayor of Mary Esther. He dedicated his energy, as he had before, toward making his city the best place to live. John is well-known for the efforts he put forth toward that goal. From 2003 to 2004, he also served as president of the Northwest Florida League of Cities, where he shared his insights with others and looked at ways he could better aid and lead the city of Mary Esther. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I commend Mayor John Thomas for his excellent leadership in Northwest Florida and for his selfless service to our Nation. The city of Mary Esther has benefited greatly from his service, and I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the U.S. Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today to recognize David Crissey as Teacher of the Year for the 2005-2006 school year. On January 30, 2006, David Crissey was announced Teacher of the Year in the Santa Rosa County School District, a district he has proudly served since 1995. Mr. Crissey is an alternative education teacher with the Exceptional Student Education Department's Students Achieving Independent Learning, SAIL, Program at the Berryhill Administrative Complex in Milton, FL. The SAIL program serves students who have been removed from their home schools due to a zero tolerance offense or for a long pattern of chronic disruptive behaviors. It takes a special person with an abundance of patience to teach these students not only academics, but also how to succeed socially in society. Stemming from his love for helping children to become successful, over the past 10 years David Crissey has developed an innovative resiliency training program, which teaches students to bounce back from the life stressors they have faced in their lives. Not only an educator for his students, he has presented his resiliency training program as well as other innovative alternative education programming at several international, national, regional and State level conferences to help prepare his colleagues for the behavioral challenges that will face them in the classroom. The Teacher of the Year recognition highlights 1 year of teaching, but the proof of greatness lies beyond the title; it lies in the hearts and minds of the students who have been deeply affected. Undeniably, each day walking into the classroom, David Crissey positively shapes the lives of his students. Through his hard work and dedication in the field of academia, the impact he has had on his students and the difference he has made in their lives has proven him to be among the great teachers in Northwest Florida, and Santa Rosa School District is honored to have him as one of their own. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the U.S. Congress, I am proud to recognize David Crissey on this outstanding achievement for his exemplary service in the Santa Rosa County School District.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me today to rise in appreciation of the 22 years Gunnery Sergeant Lorenzo Chance has served in our United States Armed Forces. A native of the great State of North Carolina, Gunnery Sergeant Chance is a true patriot who has significantly contributed to the defense of our Nation. After graduating from Cape Fear High School in 1983, Gunnery Sergeant Chance entered the Corps at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, where he attended basic training. Gunnery Sergeant Chance's assignments in the Marine Corps include: September 1984-1986, Admin Clerk, HQMC Manpower Branch; November 1986-December 1987, Embarkation NCO, Marine Wing Headquarters Squadron-1, Okinawa, Japan; January 1988-December 1991 HQMC Programs and Resources Division, Assistant Security Manager ensuring the personnel, physical, and information security of a division of 60 persons, hundreds of documents, and equipment; January 1992-June 1995, Military Entrance Processing Station Montgomery, AL, Processing Specialist, interviewing and processing thousands of applicants into the U.S. Armed Forces; July 1995-November 1997 Parris Island, SC, Senior Drill Instructor, Third RTBN, K Company and, Operations Chief/Acting First Sergeant, Support BN, Special Training Company, a direct impact in the ``Making of Marines''; December 1997-April 2002, HQMC PP&O, Current Operations Branch, Marine Corps Command Center where he served as an Assistant Watch; Team Chief, SNCOIC Marine Corps Exercises Employment Program, and Post 9/11 Crisis Action Team Operations Chief. During this period he was also assigned various other duties, including service as a Member of the Headquarters Marine Corps, Inspector General's Readiness Assessment Team, responsibility for globally inspecting Marine Corps units for deployment capability and, in the 2000 Presidential Inaugural Committee, SNCOIC of the Street Cordon. May 2002 through November 2005 Gunnery Sergeant Chance served the 435 Members of both the 108th and 109th Congress as SNCOIC Marine Corps House Liaison Office. He was also the Senior Enlisted service member to the U.S. House of Representatives during this period. Gunnery Sergeant Chance was responsible for directing and organizing numerous congressional and staff delegations around the world. His attention to detail in making these very important trips logistically successful is noteworthy. On a personal note, I had the pleasure of traveling several times to many different countries with Gunnery Sergeant Chance. He was a true professional at all times and my wife and I always enjoyed his company. We both wish him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' and are honored he asked us to participate in his retirement. Mr. Speaker, few can match the dedication Lorenzo Chance has shown the United States Marine Corps and our Nation. His service has benefited so many and I cannot express enough gratitude to him. On behalf of the United States Congress, I wish to thank Lorenzo Chance and lastly, ``Semper Fidelis.''

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am proud to introduce H.R. 4843, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006. The Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Shelley Berkley, as well as full Committee Chairman Steve Buyer and Ranking Member Lane Evans, join me as original cosponsors of the bill. H.R. 4843 would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans' benefits effective December 1, 2006. This would affect more than 2.9 million service-connected veterans and survivors of service-connected veterans. The VA Committee periodically reviews the service-connected disability and dependency and indemnity programs to ensure that the benefits provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled veterans and their families. Based on this review, Congress acts annually to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in veterans' compensation and survivor benefits. Mr. Speaker, Congress has provided increases in these rates for every fiscal year since 1976. The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget submission includes funding for a projected 2.6 percent increase. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today to recognize the 80th Anniversary of NewsTalk Radio 1370 WCOA. On February 3, 1926, WCOA aired as Pensacola Florida's first radio station. Ever since, Pensacola has been proud to call WCOA one of her own. Beginning with John E. Frenkel, Sr., who originally came up with the call letters WCOA, or ``Wonderful City of Advantages'', for generations, its radio personalities have entertained the Gulf Coast. Along the journey, WCOA gave us Don Priest, Ted Cassidy, Sally Henderson, along with so many others. It is no wonder why, with a current broadcast team made up of Luke McCoy, Don Parker, Jim Roberts, and Bryan Newkirk, many Northwest Floridians can be found tuning into 1370 daily. This station earned the respect and loyalty of its listeners. During its inaugural year, a hurricane devastated the city of Pensacola and took WCOA off the air. Soon thereafter and ever since, it has stood as a source of information that people rely on during the times of emergency and has been designated as the Emergency Alert System radio station in the area. After broadcasting music for many years, in 1991 the station turned to an all news/talk format. While WCOA broadcasts programs that feature prominent national radio personalities, such as, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, it is proud to be home to many local shows, including Pensacola Speaks, one of the longest running call-in shows in the United States. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to recognize the 80th Anniversary of NewsTalk Radio 1370 WCOA and its service to the communities of Northwest Florida.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a gentleman who has three sons serving in our Armed Forces today, one of whom returned from service in Iraq last year.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 322) expressing the Sense of Congress regarding the contribution of the USO to the morale and welfare of our servicemen and women of our armed forces and their families, as amended.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution currently under consideration.

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

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the United Service Organizations, established on February 4 of 1941, has become a national treasure. In every war and every theater of operation since World War II where Americans have been deployed, the USO has been there to entertain and to increase the morale and welfare of the men and women in the military and their families. As the chairman of the USO Caucus it is my pleasure to bring this resolution to the floor today. When the organization was formed, the military was expanding rapidly for the impending conflict. Between 1940 and 1944 the size of our military grew from 50,000 to over 12 million. At its high point during the Second World War the USO had over 3,000 clubs and 1.5 million volunteers to provide services to military personnel. On the entertainment side, the U.S. provided 428,521 shows and performances. To put this figure into perspective around the world, the USO would do sometimes 700 shows a day. It estimates that over 7,000 entertainers were sent overseas to entertain our troops. Today, USO facilities are visited over 5 million times a year; and although the USO does have a paid staff, the bulk of the service that they provide is through 12,000 volunteers who donate over 450,000 hours annually. In 2005, the USO sent out over 50 celebrity entertainment tours. Almost 200,000 servicemembers in some 30 countries were visited by these tours. The USO has distributed over 750,000 care packages to deploying servicemembers, and last year they had three care package stuffing parts right here on Capitol Hill for troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. I have helped stuff packages myself, as have many other Members of Congress and their staff. We have to date stuffed and sent 12,000 care packages. My goal is to increase that number to 20,000 a year. It is the least that we as Members of Congress can do. H. Con. Res. 322 will recognize the thousands of men and women, mostly volunteers, who have made the USO possible, for without them the USO would not be half of what it is. Every time I have the opportunity to go overseas to Iraq, Afghanistan, to Bosnia and other areas of operation around the world, the men and women tell me all the time, send us more USO shows. Send us more of those USO care packages. To me, Mr. Speaker, that says that our USO continues to be the single most important morale booster to our men and women serving overseas. From the Second World War to Iraq, the USO has been there and is there today, and we are here for the men and women of the USO. God bless them and the incredible work that they do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today to recognize Naval Hospital Pensacola in my district for being named the best mid-sized Department of Defense hospital in the nation for patient satisfaction. Last month, the 2006 annual TRICARE conference focused on Department of Defense health facilities that excel in providing healthcare to active service members, retirees, and their families, and I am proud to know that those who so bravely serve our country can come to Northwest Florida for quality healthcare. I also want to commend Naval Hospital Pensacola's Commanding Officer, Captain Matt Nathan, for leading the hospital over the last 2 years and ensuring that his staff deliver the best services possible to those in need. This award reflects as much on the staff that oversee the day-to- day operation of the hospital, including patient care and follow-up. Naval Hospital Pensacola has long been a top provider of customer satisfaction because of this outstanding staff, and I am proud to see them along with Captain Nathan take the hospital to the number one spot. I am confident that all of those who work at Naval Hospital Pensacola will continue to strive toward the best healthcare for our active and retired service members and their families well into the future. It is this kind of health care that should serve as a model for how we should take care of those who dedicate their lives toward the freedom of this great Nation and the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to recognize Naval Hospital Pensacola as being the top medium-sized Department of Defense hospital in our Nation, and I wish them great success down the road.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this week I attended the funeral of SSgt Daniel Clay. Sergeant Clay was from my district and one of ten Marines killed by an IED in Fallujah, Iraq on December 1, 2005. Dan's father, Bud Clay, shared with me a letter his son wrote to his loved ones before he was killed. Accompanying his son's letter was a letter Bud had written to President Bush. Mr. Clay asked me to take this to Congress and share with you so that we could all see Dan's final thoughts and wishes. May God Bless SSgt Daniel Clay, his family, our veterans, our troops, and the United States of America. Mom, Dad, Kristie, Jodie, Kimberly, Robert, Katy, Richard, and my Lisa: Boy do I love each and every one of you. This letter being read means that I have been deemed worthy of being with Christ. With MaMa Jo, MaMa Clay, Jennifer . . . all those we have been without for our time during the race. This is not a bad thing. It is what we hope for. The secret it out. He lives and His promises are real! It is not faith that supports this . . . But fact and I now am a part of the promise. Here is notice! Wake up! All that we hope for is Real. Not a hope. But Real. But here is something tangible. What we have done in Iraq is worth any sacrifice. Why? Because it was our duty. That sounds simple. But all of us have a duty. Duty is defined as a God given task. Without duty life is worthless. It holds no type of fulfillment. The simple fact that our bodies are built for work has to lead us to the conclusion that God (who made us) put us together to do His work. His work is different for each of us. Mom, yours was to be the glue of our family, to be a pillar for those women (all women around you), Dad, yours was to train and build us (like a Platoon Sgt) to better serve Him. Kristie, Kim, Katy you are the five team leaders who support your Squad ldrs, Jodie, Robert and Richard. Lisa you too. You are my XO and you did a hell of a job. You all have your duties. Be thankful that God in His wisdom gives us work. Mine was to ensure that you did not have to experience what it takes to protect what we have as a family. This I am so thankful for. I know what honor is. It is not a word to be thrown around. It has been an Honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. This is as close to Christ-like I can be. That emulation is where all honor lies. I thank you for making it worthwhile. As a Marine this is not the last Chapter. I have the privilege of being one who has finished the race. I have been in the company of heroes. I now am counted among them. Never falter! Don't hesitate to honor and support those of us who have the honor of protecting that which is worth protecting. Now here are my final wishes. Do not cry! To do so is to not realize what we have placed all our hope and faith in. We should not fear. We should not be sad. Be thankful. Be so thankful. All we hoped for is true. Celebrate! My race is over, my time in war zone is over. My trials are done. A short time separates all of us from His reality. So laugh. Enjoy the moments and your duty. God is wonderful. I love each and every one of you. Spread the word . . . Christ lives and He is Real. Semper Fidelis,