Jeff Miller

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the two-year anniversary of the worst attack on American soil in our history. Once again I would like to express my sorrow for the families of the September 11 victims and all those who have lost their lives in the war on terrorism. The power of the American spirit shall never again be underestimated. On September 11 and the days since, America has shown everyone that a strong, vibrant nation faced with adversity can come together unlike any nation on earth. America has distinguished itself as the shining beacon of democracy throughout the world. When attacked, and freedom is in danger, we have proven that freedom will prevail. I am proud to see American citizens reflect on this day, whether by displaying flags or sharing a moment of silence. The memories of that tragic day will always be remembered and reflected upon by the First District of Florida. May God bless our military men and women, and these United States.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strongest opposition to H.R. 2765, the District of Columbia Appropriations for fiscal year 2004. Many of you may not realize, but this legislation allows DC taxpayer dollars to be used for domestic partner benefits. Any allocation of the DC budget should not be used to fund domestic partner benefits. The family unit--beginning with a marriage between one man and one woman-- has been the basic unit of every civil society since time immemorial. I firmly believe that marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman and the foundation for a strong, healthy family. Studies have proven time and time again that a healthy marriage between a man and a woman provides the fundamental support for rearing healthy children, both mentally and physically. Despite the overwhelming evidence of the benefits of marriage to families and society, the sad fact is that, for over four decades, the welfare system has penalized and discouraged marriage. Allowing domestic partnerships means providing employment, health, or government benefits to unmarried domestic partners. By recognizing the partnership they will benefit from both the welfare system and tax credits, which undermines the sanctity of marriage and government services for those truly in need. Although I am in opposition to the overall legislation, I urge my colleagues to strongly support the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act. Who should have the right to determine where a child goes to school, the parents or the government? I unconditionally believe parents have this right and are in a much better position than a government bureaucrat to decide what is best for a child. Public schools are government-run and supported by individuals through their tax-dollars. Vouchers would allow parents to use their own tax dollars to achieve the means of educating their children. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my distinct privilege to rise today as the House considers H.R. 1572, a bill to designate the Historic Federal District Court Building located at 100 North Palafox street in Pensacola, Florida, as the Winston E. Arnow Federal Building. Since the United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida moved to a new courthouse location in 1999, this building has been undergoing a major renovation and is expected to be ready for occupancy in the latter part of 2004. Occupying the building will be the Bankruptcy Unit of the District Court, the United States Probation Offices and a portion of the District Court, eventually including a U.S. District Judge and staff. The building will become an integral part of the Florida Northern District Court in Pensacola. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I introduced this measure to provide a fitting tribute to the service and life of a man who did so much for northwest Florida. He is widely acknowledged as the judge who made the hard decisions that reshaped our local area in the late sixties and seventies. Judge Arnow's decisions have shaped northern Florida's governments, its schools and its jails. These courageous decisions, which led to numerous threats on his life, have stood the test of time. A man of honesty and rigid judicial integrity, Judge Arnow believed that a Judge had to follow the Constitution, the statutes and appellate precedents. He did not care whether he liked them or not. He did this as his duty, and he did it as he saw it, regardless of who the litigant or the lawyer was. He was a friendly, soft-spoken country lawyer. Friends and colleagues regarded Judge Arnow as a southern gentleman in the traditional sense; very formal in court, yet very warm and friendly in everyday life. An avid sportsman, he was a good shooter and could frequently be found in his mint-condition green Jeep on his way to a dove hunt. Today, the name Judge Winston E. ``Bo'' Arnow is an integral part of the revolutionary period from 1969 to 1978 in northwest Florida when he followed U.S. Supreme Court mandates to ensure the election of blacks, public school desegregation, and the new Escambia County Jail to improve living conditions of the inmates. He was the first Federal Judge to be a Pensacola resident since 1934. He served as Chief Judge of the Northern District of Florida stretching from Pensacola to Gainesville until 1981. He was still on the bench into his eighties, dying at the age of 83 on November 28, 1994. Judicial associates saw Judge Arnow as all integrity, ignoring criticism by doing what he thought was the right and proper thing to do to protect civil liberties. In court he was all business. Once on the bench, he had no friends, only the fairness of law, and he took great pride in giving stern direction to wayward lawyers. His philosophy was, ``Be on time and be damn ready when you get there.'' He was polite and he was fair, and exercised a no-nonsense attitude in his jurisprudence. Judge Arnow went out of his way to protect the rights of the accused, and yet was equally stern in sentencing the guilty. His social and governmental decisions had profound effect; election of the first black county commissioner since Reconstruction; construction of the Escambia County Jail and renovation of the Santa Rosa County Jail. In 1972, as we have already heard, Judge Arnow ended the long-simmering dispute over ownership of the Naval Life Oaks Reservation by declaring the historic woodland in the Gulf Island National Seashore belonged to the people of the United States. A political conservative and a strict constructionist, Judge Arnow believed firmly in the United States Constitution and followed the statutes and higher Federal Court decisions to the letter, even if he may have personally disagreed. The people of northwest Florida, past, present and future, owe a debt of gratitude to Judge Arnow's wife, the former Frances Day Cease, and his daughter, Ann Arnow Moulton, for sharing their husband and father with northwest Florida for so many years. I want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, and his ranking member, the gentlewoman from District of Columbia, for their assistance in getting this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank my 24 colleagues from the Great State of Florida for their co-sponsorship. I urge my colleagues to support this measure to recognize a legacy of American fairness by a man whose decisions were in the right spirit of the instrument in which he believed most, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in wholehearted support of H. Con. Res. 212. I commend Congressman Sam Johnson, a true patriot, for introducing this legislation. I cannot think of a more appropriate individual to lead this commemorative charge to honor those who fought courageously and fearlessly for our country than this veteran who himself flew 62 combat missions in the Korean Conflict. The Korean War marked the first time in history that the United Nations sent armed forces into combat to stop aggression. Armed forces and medical support units from 20 allied United Nations member states, along with the Republic of Korea and Italy, teamed together to halt the attempted communist takeover of the Republic of Korea. The services and sacrifices of our Korean War veterans a half-century ago saved a nation from enslavement and a world from communist domination. Our troops gave the emerging country of South Korea the opportunity to develop and flourish under freedom and democracy into the successful, modern nation it is today. 1.8 million heroic Americans answered the call to defend freedom and fight back the forces of communism. America suffered 36,577 dead and 103,284 wounded in some of the most horrific conditions ever known in history of warfare. Louie Kerr wrote of spending Christmas Day, 1950, on the Inchon River: December 25, 1950: I was a young sailor just out of boot camp when our ship, the U.S.S. Graffias AF28 was sent to Korea in support of our counterparts. After spending eighteen months there we had many adventures and stories to tell. But my most memorable one was the time we went up the Inchon River while taking small arms fire from the beach on Christmas Day to take food and supplies up to the First Marine Division who was tied down and unable to get supplies into them. I have talked to a few of them since the war, and believe me, they remember that day when they ate their turkey and ham and fresh fruit and nuts. We ate our Christmas Dinner the next day, but I don't think there was a single man on board who resented it. On the heels of World War II, Korea was in many ways, the first reminder that America must remain the world's leading force for peace, prosperity, and freedom. The Korean War is often referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' but this resolution will help to see that Louie Kerr's service and that of so many, many others must never be forgotten. Fifty years ago this Sunday, the armistice was signed, ending the fighting in Korea and halting the spread of communism. American forces and those of her allies had thwarted the rise of communist power and North Korea's invasion into South Korea. In May, I had the opportunity to visit North Korea. In Pyongyang, I saw firsthand the fate from which America rescued the people of South Korea in its commitment to freedom around the world. I saw a large city, trapped in time, oppressed by a bully regime intent on holding its people hostage for spoils their people will never know. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 212 recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of designating 2003 the Year of the Korean Veteran and to commend the sacrifices made by all Korean War veterans. This resolution will engage committed communities, school, civic organizations, businesses, media and social agencies and organizations nationwide in the quest to honor and remember those who have paid the ultimate price, and who remind this great nation that Freedom Is Not Free.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Lloyd Family for being selected the 2003 Outstanding Farm Family. The Lloyd family has continued a strong tradition of family farming in northwest Florida. Both of Adone's grandfathers, Thaddus Lloyd and Oliver Smith, were farmers in Santa Rosa County and the Lloyds still farm some of their land. Adone started helping out on the farm at age 12, then began helping his Uncle Lewie Frank Smith during high school. Adone was given a scholarship to play ball at Troy State, but he says ``the love of farming kept me at home.'' Adone has been farming for 40 years and currently farms 700 acres where they grow cotton and peanuts and raise Angus cattle. In 1967 he married the former Nancy McDavid of Flomaton, AL, where, he says, ``has been my partner in the good and bad that farmers must face.'' Adone and his wife Nancy have two daughters, Shannon Smith and Wendy Nash, and five grandchildren, Jared Smith, Olivia Wright, Cameron Wright, A.J. Nash, and Slater Nash. Adone and Nancy would like to see their grandchildren take over the farm one day and continue farming the ground their great-grandfathers started farming in the county. The Lloyds are leaders in our country's production of food and fiber and are involved in various agricultural organizations. Adone has been on the board of the Jay Peanut Farmers Co-op for the past 20 years. He has also served on the boards of the county Farm Bureau and Farm Service Agency. Nancy currently serves as minority advisor on the county Farm Service Agency Board. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, I would like to recognize this special family for the example they have set in their community. I offer my sincere thanks for all that the Lloyd family has done for northwest Florida.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the unsettling increase of anti-Semitic sentiments of many academics in the United Kingdom. Over the past year, a growing number of university professors in the U.K. have engaged in a boycott of scholars and research from Israel. Most recently, a professor at Oxford denied the admittance of an Israeli graduate student based solely on his Israeli citizenship. So what has fueled this rise in academic anti-Semitism? One only needs to look at the policies of the Association of University Teachers, one of Britain's largest associations for higher education professionals. The AUT Web site states, ``We also support the call by academics in the U.K. and elsewhere for a moratorium on European Union and European Science Foundation funding of Israeli cultural and research institutions until Israel abides by U.N. resolutions and opens meaningful peace negotiations with the Palestinians.'' The ``academics'' in the U.K. have taken a giant step backward from the tradition of teaching individual rights and liberties and free thought. This boycott of Israeli academics and philosophy, ideas that originate in the Middle East's only true democracy, is a clear indication that the values that gave birth to our own American free- thinking principles are no longer practiced by many of the U.K.'s educators.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of one of my constituents, the World Boxing Association's heavyweight champion of the world, Roy Jones, Jr. Roy began his rise to greatness when he was awarded the Silver Medal in the 1988 Olympics and was voted the outstanding boxer of the Games. Roy has since compiled a record of 48 wins and 1 loss with 38 of his wins being by knockouts over the period of his career. Roy Jones, Jr., earned his first title by beating IBF middleweight champion Bernard Hopkins in 1993. He quickly moved up to the super middleweight division and dominated the weight class by beating James Toney in 1994. Roy's next move to the super light heavyweight division produced even more success by winning the welterweight boxing champion 1997, WBA 1998, and IBF titles in 1999. His only loss was due to a disqualification to Montel Griffin, which he avenged with a first-round knockout 5 months later. Roy is widely considered the best pound-for-pound boxer of this era. He became the first boxer in over a century to win both a world middleweight title and a world heavyweight title. Roy is one of the boxing world's best ring technicians by finding ways to beat his opponents who are often bigger than he is. He attributes much of his success in the ring to watching tapes and finding his opponents' weaknesses and then exploiting them. On March 1, 2003, he squared off against the WBA champion, John Ruis, who had a 50-pound weight advantage over him. He won the title from Ruis, proving that only one fighter, Roy Jones, Jr., can make history and overcome such an enormous disadvantage. Roy has always given back to his communities through mentoring of amateur boxers, encouraging locals to get involved with African American community issues through his music, and his vast philanthropic work. Roy has not forgotten his roots and always shows the pride of his hometown when he thrusts his arms in the air and screams ``Pensacola'' after each victory in the ring. Roy is constantly distinguishing himself with achievements that are unmatched by any boxer in history. Northwest Florida is recognizing this great man by designating July 19, 2003, as Roy Jones, Jr., day. And on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to recognize this very special person, Roy Jones, Jr., for the example he has set in the sports world, in his country, and in northwest Florida. I offer my sincere thanks for all that he has done for northwest Florida and the United States of America.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor a great American, a great Congressman and my friend, Mr. Bob Stump of Arizona. Like my colleagues, my memories of Bob reflect an honest individual, and as true as the day is long. His departure last year was difficult, his death--sad. I first met Mr. Stump when I was running for Congress. My predecessor brought me around to show me the Committee on Armed Services and to meet those I hoped would be my colleagues. Bob, the chairman of the Armed Services, took a few minutes to visit, shared a few thoughts on his experience in Congress and we snapped a photo. It's kind of funny now, but that picture was used in my campaign brochure. One of my opponents was outraged that I would use the photo. He managed to call Chairman Stump, making him aware of the photo. He further asked Bob if he had endorsed me. Put in the corner, asked to judge me by the few minutes we visited or to judge my opponent by the call he was now taking, Mr. Stump told my opponent yes, yes he would endorse me. Of course we laughed about that story a couple of times but we always had plenty to talk about. Both Mr. Stump and my family were cotton farmers. We would talk about farming methods, the weather, a very easy give and take. Every Thursday, at the prayer breakfast, Mr. Stump would be there in his western suit, boots and a smile, pouring coffee. Not a cup in the house was dry with Bob around. It was his job; it was something he wanted to do, he was a public servant. I am fortunate to have known Bob Stump. I was fortunate to serve under his chairmanship on Armed Services and to now serve under his portrait in both the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It is as if he is always looking over my shoulder, making sure my decisions are the right ones. Mr. Stump's commitment to the warfighter is to be emulated. He was a shining example of a statesman and a fantastic public servant. A good man has left this Earth and we are going to miss him. I honestly believe that the House of Representatives, the institution and this country is better today due to Bob Stump's efforts. It was an honor to know you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Gary Bergosh and celebrate his safe return home from active duty in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Gary is the ultimate example of a citizen soldier by serving his country for four years of active duty in the Marine Corps Reserves and the state of Florida for the past ten years practicing law. Gary was raised in a Navy family and attended elementary, middle and high school in Pensacola, Florida. Gary attended Pensacola Junior College and graduated from The University of West Florida. Shortly after graduation, Gary attended Marine Corps Officer Candidate School, where he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant. Gary attended law school at the University of Memphis while serving in the Marine Corps reserves. Upon completion, Gary entered active duty with the Marine Corps and served three years in Okinawa, Japan as a prosecutor and a defense attorney. After leaving active duty with the Marine Corps, Gary decided to return home to Pensacola and became a prosecutor for the State Attorney's office. Gary is currently a senior attorney for the Federal Government, a Major in the United States Marine Corps Reserves, and in November of 2000 was appointed by Florida Governor Jeb Bush to serve as a member of the Escambia County School Board. Gary's Marine Corps unit, the 4th Assault Amphibian Battalion, was activated on January 27, 2003 to fight the nation's war against terrorism. Gary served as the Battalion's Executive Officer in Kuwait and Iraq during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Gary returned with his Battalion to the United States on June 6, 2003. Gary will be demobilized from active duty on September 1, 2003. While at the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School, Gary married the former Carissa Borders, a native of Pensacola. Gary and Carissa are currently the proud parents of Alexander. The Bergosh family are active members of their church and community. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Major Gary Bergosh for the example he has set in his community. I offer my sincere thanks for all that he has done for Northwest Florida and this great nation.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that my colleague would remain in the Chamber for the next hour while we talk a little bit about exactly what the Committee on Veterans Affairs has done and the discussion of the cuts that are being made to the veterans budget. We will get into that a little bit later. But tonight I want to talk about something called SBP, and we will discuss it in great length. But I want to introduce you to somebody first. Her name is Dottie Welch. Dottie's story goes something like this: When Lt. Colonel Roger Welch of the United States Army retired and signed up for the military survivor benefit plan, better known now as SBP, years ago, he was told that in the event of his death, SBP would pay his wife, Dottie, 55 percent of his retirement pay for the rest of her life. When he signed an irrevocable agreement to pay annually-increasing SBP premiums for the rest of his life, he did not know that his wife's future SBP benefit actually would be one-third less than what they were led to believe. When Roger died in June of 2002, Dottie was dismayed to learn that there would be an offset, an offset based on her husband's Social Security-covered military earnings, that would reduce her benefits. With Social Security survivor benefits and the reduced SBP annuity, her total income is $384 a month less than she and Roger thought she would have to live on. Dottie thinks the Social Security offset is just plain wrong. No one will tell her why it is there and why it is so large. Her husband, Roger, only had 5 years of military service covered by Social Security. Dottie Welch's case highlights one significant inequity of the military SBP and the reason why so many retirees and survivors are upset about its current situation. Unfortunately, this is only the first of several ways that Uniform Service Survivor Benefits relative to premiums being paid fall far short of what retirees and survivors were promised and what is afforded survivors of other Federal retirees. There are three major SBP inequities. But before I go into those inequities tonight, I would like to pause for a moment and recognize my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who has been a stalwart supporter of the veterans of this country. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), for his comments and his support of veterans' issues. I also wish to add my congratulations and best wishes to him as he very soon becomes one of those retirees after serving many years in the Army Guard in his home State. Mr. Speaker, there are three major SBP inequities. One is that thousands of people who bought SBP coverage were not briefed that most survivors' SBP annuities would be reduced substantially after age 62; two, the 40 percent government subsidy envisioned by Congress and touted by the services to encourage retirees' participation has plunged to 17 percent; three, the government provides Federal civilian survivors a substantially higher share of retired pay for life with no benefit reduction at any age. The impact of these inequities is, as Members can imagine, devastating to many survivors, because SBP is not exactly a king's ransom at 55 percent of retired pay. At 35 percent, SBP provides only a poverty level or lower annuity for most survivors, even those of relatively senior officers. So I am here tonight to provide more specifics on how the military SBP program is not providing, is not providing the level of protection military survivors need and deserve and were expecting; and why my bill, H.R. 548, the Military Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2003, is what is needed now to fix the current problem. The first issue that we need to discuss tonight is something that I call the benefit reduction shock. It is incredulous to many that such an important feature of SBP, the reduced age 62 annuity that applies to the vast majority of military survivors, was never explained to retirees being asked to sign up for the program in the seventies and in the early eighties, but it is true. I have in my hand a copy of the actual SBP Election Form 5002 signed by a retired member in 1982 in two different places. It specifies that SBP will pay the survivor 55 percent of the member's retired pay. Nowhere, even in the fine print, does it mention any lower figure. We can only speculate about how or why this key fact was omitted, but it hardly matters now to those who were misled by the forms and by the briefings. Certainly, the offset was extremely complicated for retirement counselors to explain, and it was almost impossible to tell any particular retiree at that point what SBP amount his or her survivor would actually receive after attaining the age of 62. For members who attained retirement eligibility before 1985, the offset represented the amount of the survivors' Social Security benefit that was attributable to the Member's Social Security-covered military earnings, because the military only came under the Social Security system in 1957, and that amount varied widely for different retirees, and the rules for the calculation of Social Security benefits due to military versus civilian employment are arcane at best. When they first learned of the age 62 benefit reduction, years, sometimes decades, after they purchased SBP, many older retirees and survivors expressed outrage in the mistaken belief that Congress had changed the law on them after the fact. Not so. The age 62 reduction was part of the initial SBP law enacted in 1972, but this critical piece of information did not find its way into most military retirement briefings and SBP election forms until many years later after complaints, years after complaints started to roll in. Large numbers of retirees and survivors feel betrayed by what they perceive as a bait-and-switch under which they were asked to sign irrevocable contracts to pay lifetime SBP premiums without being told what the annuity level they were actually buying was. Dottie Welch is far from the only spouse who is very much aware of the impact of the Social Security offset. One survivor's husband was a Navy hard-hat diver during World War II, then an electronics technician on a nuclear submarine until his retirement in 1966. When he died in May of 2002, his widow had no idea she would be hit by the offset. ``I was shocked. I almost fell out of the chair, and wondered why God hadn't taken me too,'' she says today. In the grief that followed her husband's death, this 78-year-old widow also faced numerous family bills and health problems. When her SBP annuity started, she was stunned to find out that it was one-third, one-third less than what she had expected. Now faced with $21,000 in bills, she was advised to declare bankruptcy, and feared she would lose her home trying to pay her debts. Her financial struggles eventually led her to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society for a grant to help her get back on her feet financially. Not one member of our greatest American generation should find themselves under this kind of stress while getting over the death of their spouse and trying to do something with the large bills that were facing them. In an attempt to reduce this kind of confusion, in 1985 Congress established a two-tier system, not linked to Social Security, that actually provides an SBP survivor 55 percent of retired pay until age 62, and 35 percent after that age. But making the age 62 reduction clear for the post-1985 retirees did not make it any fairer, and it did not change the fact that thousands upon thousands of earlier participants had not been told of the age 62 annuity reduction. Also in 1985, Congress shocked the survivor community by repealing the 1984 legislation that would have barred any SBP Social Security offset for survivors who earned their Social Security benefits from their own work history rather than the military retiree's, as assumed under the original offset law. This only further highlighted the unfairness of the offset to thousands of widows who had pursued their own military or civilian careers. Now, the second issue, another broken promise. When SBP was enacted in 1972, Congress set the premium formula in law with the intent that retirees' monthly premium payments would cover 60 percent, 60 percent of the long-term costs of the survivor benefits, with the government paying the remaining 40 percent. The formula was based on the program cost assumptions prepared by the Department of Defense actuaries concerning future inflation rates, pay raises, longevity of retirees, and survivors' longevity, et cetera. But actual experience in later years proved the actuaries' original estimates had been far too conservative, as inflation was lower than predicted and retirees lived and paid premiums longer than anticipated. Because retiree premiums were locked into law and covered a greater portion of the program costs than had been projected, the government reaped an economic windfall, and found its share of the cost for the SBP program was much lower than anticipated. By 1988, retiree premiums covered 77 percent of the SBP costs, and DOD's share had dropped to 23 percent. To its credit, Congress acted in 1990 to restore the intended 60/40 balance by reducing retiree premiums to 6.5 percent of retired pay, but the overconservative actuarial assumptions have continued to work against, work against retirees for the last decade, with the result that the Federal subsidy for SBP has continued to decline. As of 2003, the government's share has dropped from 40 percent to 17 percent, leaving retirees once more paying a higher-than-intended share of the benefit. The only fair way to restore the proper cost balance between the retirees and the government is to reduce the premium, or increase the SBP benefit. The former benefits primarily retirees, while the latter benefits the survivors. Since retiree premiums were reduced to restore the 60/40 balance in 1990, Congress should restore the government's intended 40 percent cost share by raising the benefit for survivors. My bill does exactly that. Now, the third issue. It is the military-civilian inequity. No less compelling than the misleading of enrollees and the decline of the intended subsidy is the stunning disparity that exists between benefits and subsidy levels the government offers military versus Federal civilian survivors. In contrast to the military SBP subsidy of, remember, 17 percent, currently, the SBP for Federal civilian employees under the post-1984 Federal Employee Retirement System provides a 33 percent subsidy. For those under the pre-1984 Civil Service Retirement System the subsidy is 48 percent, and at 48 percent, it is nearly three times as high as the military's. Even more important, the Federal Employment Retirement System survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay, and the other survivors under the old Civil Service Retirement System receive 55 percent for life, with no benefit reduction, no benefit reduction, at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are higher, military retirees pay SBP premiums for a far longer period of time than do most civilians because they are required to retire at a younger age. Because their mortality rates are not much different, this means that Federal civilian retirees have a far more advantageous benefit-to-premium ratio, as indicated on these charts. Now, military retirees particularly pay SBP premiums about twice as long, twice as long as Federal civilians because they retire at younger ages, but their spouses' longevity is about the same. So military SBP enrollees see a lower return and a much lower government subsidy. Remember Dottie? My bill is the needed fix for the three major inequities of the Survivor Benefit Plan. We must keep faith with the older retirees and with the survivors. We must restore the intended 40 percent Federal subsidy, and we must put SBP on an equal footing with its Federal civilian equivalent. The Military Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2003, my bill, accomplishes these three things. For these reasons, the 33 military and veterans associations of the military coalition have endorsed my bill and have made its passage one of their top priorities in the 108th Congress. H.R. 548 will balance equity and will balance cost considerations by phasing out the SBP age 62 benefit reduction over the next 5 years. And upon enactment, the age 62 benefit increase phase-in will begin at 40 percent on October 1 of 2004 and continually annually each year after through the year of 2007 until the benefits are restored to a full 55 percent as was the desire of Congress. In order to offset part of the costs of the benefit increase, H.R. 548 authorizes an open season provision in the legislation that would allow more retirees to participate, generating SBP program savings, and significantly reducing the outlays. Now, Congress has already acknowledged the need for this particular piece of legislation. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act included a provision asserting the sense of Congress that there should be enacted legislation to reduce and eventually eliminate the different levels of SBP annuity for surviving spouses who are under age 62 and those who are 62 and older. But we have failed to follow through on that commitment for the last 2 years. It is time for us to fix this problem. Military widows and widowers have waited long enough in their fight for fairness. Now is the time for Congress to step up and enact relief for the aging survivors of our greatest generation. World War II and Korean War retirees, and the following generations of retirees and survivors, deserve no less than the SBP deal they were promised and the one the government already provides for other Federal survivors. Now, a quick time line of H.R. 548. It was introduced on February 5 of 2003. And upon introduction, we had 118 bipartisan co-sponsors. That is 27 percent of the entire House of Representatives. On that day it was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On February 28 of 2003, it was referred to the Total Force subcommittee, and on the same date executive comment was requested from DOD. Now, over 3 months later I urged DOD to act on this request. On March 7 of 2003, a letter was sent to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), of the House Committee on the Budget urging support to include budget authority in fiscal year 2004 in our budget resolution. On the letter there were 36 bipartisan co-signers, including numerous members of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Today this bill has 268 bipartisan co-sponsors. That equates to 62 percent of this House. All Americans should urge their Representatives to co-sponsor H.R. 548 and their Senators to co-sponsor Senate bill 451, introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Again, who supports H.R. 548? The number one legislative priority of the Military Officers Association of America and the 108th Congress. Additionally, the bill is strongly endorsed by the Military Coalition, a consortium of 33 nationally prominent military and veterans organizations representing more than 5.5 million members of uniformed services, active, reserved, retired, survivors, veterans and their families; and there are many, many others that have sent letters of support for this bill. There are others that are tracking similar legislation in this body. I would note tonight that H.R. 1726, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act, sponsored by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), repeals the offset from surviving spouse annuities under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for amounts paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affair as dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC. It provides for the recoupment of certain amounts previously paid SBP recipients in the form of retired pay refund. It was filed on April 10 of 2003. It has been referred to the Committee on Armed Services. It has 24 co- sponsors. And I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for his efforts to restore equity to this aspect of SBP; and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. H.R. 1653, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), would change the effective date for the paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 1 of 2008 to October 1 of 2003. It has 25 co-sponsors, and I am an original co-sponsor of this particular bill. It was filed on April 7, and it too has been referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. A third piece of legislation, H.R. 1592, the Military Survivors Equity Act. It has been sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and it would repeal the two-tier annuity computation system applicable to annuities under the SBP plan for retired members of the Armed Forces so that there would be no reduction in such an annuity when the beneficiary becomes 62 years of age. It was filed on April 3 of this year, referred to the Committee on Armed Services; and it has 5 co-sponsors as this time. Both the Filner bill and my bill fulfill the 2001 sense of Congress resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction. Again, both these bills go a long way to fulfilling the sense of Congress and that resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction. Let me talk a little bit about the VA budget for 2004. Our service men and women who continue to fight for our freedom and security around the world must know that Americans are united in their support for them and for their safe return. We in Congress, along with President Bush, support not only the troops in the field but also the scores of veterans who have already given so much to this country. Unfortunately, there have been false reports, false reports circulating that Congress is actually cutting veterans benefits. Here are the facts of the congressional budget for fiscal year 2004 relating to veterans spending. This budget will allow us to fully meet our commitments to more than 2.6 million disabled veterans and widows who rely on VA benefit checks every month. It calls for $33.8 billion in mandatory spending. This is the highest spending ever in this area. It also calls for $30 billion, a 12.9 percent increase in discretionary spending. Nearly 90 percent of this funding is for veterans' medical care. These are the indisputable facts of this year's Federal budget for veterans. House Members, particularly the Republicans, along with President Bush, are committed to ensuring that those who have served their country with pride, with valor and dignity receive the best of America's appreciation. Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue, is not supported by the facts. During January, I had the opportunity to visit with some of our men and women in uniform stationed in Germany, Italy, and France. And I was struck by their professionalism and commitment to their assigned duties. They were proud to serve. It is just as simple as that. Two weeks ago, I visited North Korea where freedom is nowhere to be found and democratic thought is oppressed. We are truly blessed to live in a world of freedom and democracy and where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are abundant and, I would submit, many times taken for granted. Defense of the principles and values that we hold so dearly as a Nation leads our men and women into conflicts around the globe. Many return home after giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of such values. But to those who do return, we can never say thanks enough. Today, as we continue to rely on our Armed Forces in the war against terrorism, we look to our veterans for their example of courage and sacrifice. It is their selfless service that has made our Nation strong and our world a better place. America's veterans deserve our respect, our deepest respect, and enduring appreciation, as do their spouses who choose to marry members of our armed services and to share with them all the joys and sacrifices of their active duty careers. The Survivor Benefit Plan is not to military spouses what Congress had intended or what enrollees were promised. The program is not providing the level of protection military survivors need and deserve. Retirees and survivors deserve no less in the SBP deal than they were promised. This Congress needs to step up and deliver what the aging survivors of our greatest generation retirees were promised. And we need to provide at the proper level the protection necessary for future generations of retirees. Congress must act to fix this problem now.

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 on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of this nation's most dedicated citizens, Captain Mitchell A. Smith, of the Santa Rosa Sheriffs Office. This past Thursday, June 5, 2003, Mitch was taken from us. He tirelessly served Santa Rosa County for the past 25 years, leaving a lasting impact on the Northwest Florida Community that he came to know so well. We will forever miss Mitch, but his memory will never be forgotten. Mitch began his adult life by dedicating himself to the United States Army. He chose to serve his country, defending the freedoms and liberties that we as Americans have come to hold so dear. It was this passion to serve and help others that would continuously be shown throughout his life. In May of 1978, Mitch retired from the U.S. Army and came to the Santa Rosa Sheriffs Office. He began his career in law enforcement as a Deputy, but quickly showed his dedication and commitment to serving and protecting the people of Northwest Florida, resulting in his subsequent promotions to the ranks of Corporal, Sergeant, and Lieutenant. Just two weeks ago, Mitch received the honor and recognition of his final promotion to the rank of Captain. Just two months shy of retirement, Mitch served everyday to the best of his abilities. Over the course of his career he received numerous letters of commendation for his service to the citizens of Santa Rosa County. He was an officer respected by his peers, admired by his community, and loved by his family and friends. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family of Capt. Mitchell A. Smith for their loss. Although his time with us was cut short, we will be forever grateful for the time that Mitch did have with us in Santa Rosa County. On this such occasion, we honor one of America's greatest citizens, Capt. Mitchell A. Smith, whose legacy will live on long beyond his passing.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's most distinguished and dedicated pastors, Dr. Herb Sadler. After 28 years of faithful service to the Northwest Florida community as pastor of the Gulf Breeze United Methodist Church, Dr. Sadler will leave Gulf Breeze to become the District Superintendent of the Dothan District in Dothan, AL, of the Alabama-West Florida Conference of The United Methodist Church. We are grateful for the time that Dr. Sadler has spent with us in Northwest Florida and we wish him the best in his future position. Born on February 7, 1942 in Montgomery, AL and raised in Thomasville, AL, Herb holds an undergraduate degree from Livingston University and both the Master of Divinity and Doctor of Ministry degrees from Emory University. Proudly married to his wife Barbara and the father of four wonderful children, Bert, Tracy, Stuart, and Scott, he has been blessed with three grandchildren, Brady, Breanna, and Jacob. Since 1975 Herb has been at the service of the Gulf Breeze United Methodist congregation, he has overseen the growth of the parish, from 500 members to over 4,000 members, and has personally had a direct influence on the tremendous increase in worship attendance, from 100 people to nearly 2,000 people. In addition to his duties at Gulf Breeze United Methodist, Herb has served his Annual Conference, Alabama-West Florida, as Chairperson of The Board of Ordained Ministry and as President of the Council on Finance and Administration. He has been a delegate to the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 Jurisdictional Conferences and the 1992, 1996, and 2000 General Conferences. He has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Birmingham-Southern College and from 1992 to 2000 he was a member of the General Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church. Currently, he serves as Chair of the Committee on Plan of Organization and Rules of Order of the Southeastern Jurisdictional Conference. The author of two books, ``We Can All Be Winners'' and ``Today is the Only Day'', Herb has previously been President of the Gulf Breeze Rotary Club and was a charter member of the Board of Gulf Breeze Hospital, a role he continues to serve in today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere and heartfelt congratulations to my good friend Dr. Herb Sadler on his new position with the Alabama-West Florida Conference of The United Methodist Church. Herb was recently named one of the top 11 leaders in Northwest Florida by Climate Magazine and I can think of no person that is more deserving of such an honor. We will be sad to see his him leave, but wish him all the best in his new journey. Mr. Speaker, on this such occasion, we honor one of America's greatest citizens.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 4 does not outlaw flag desecration; rather, this proposal merely sets the boundaries by which Congress can enact subsequent legislation, if it so chooses, to prohibit such conduct. H.J. Res. 4 simply returns to Congress the authority that it possessed for over 200 years to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. This past week, I visited North Korea, where freedom is nowhere and democratic thought is oppressed. Our American flag is the most revered and beloved symbol of our Nation, representing all that is American and reminding the world of our love of our freedom and democracy. The flag is a bedrock of our principles and values as a country, leading our men and women into conflicts around the globe and draping the caskets of those same individuals when they return home after giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of such values. It is the flag to which we pledge allegiance, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, in civic organizations in every town in America, and in schools throughout our country. It is this object and all that it represents that Americans hold so dear. House Joint Resolution 4 will nullify two erroneous Supreme Court decisions, restoring the original interpretation to the First Amendment that had persisted for over two centuries since the birth of our country. When considering the powers of our respective branches of government in effecting the will of the American people, we should be reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861, ``If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.'' I commend my colleagues for recognizing the wishes of the American people and restoring the original interpretation and understanding of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution by supporting this resolution.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 760, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I would like to thank Mr. Chabot for introducing this important legislation and for his leadership in protecting the life of the unborn. As elected officials, banning this horrific practice may be one of the most important matters we will ever do. For years I have listened to the dislike opponents have for this bill and for this cause. And in all honesty, their concerns deeply disturb me. Throughout this debate, we have repeatedly heard the details of this so-called ``medical procedure. Doctors have described to us how the baby is pulled partly out of the mother's body, only inches from a completed birth and how an abortionist inserts scissors into the skull creating a hole where the baby's brain can be suctioned out. We have all seen pictures of the life-less body pulled from the mother and tossed away like trash. After seeing this, why is their even debate? Partial Birth abortion is murder. Anti-life advocates claim this is about a woman's right to choose. The are wrong. This is about a child's right to live. President Reagan wrote in his work ``Abortion And The Conscience Of The Nation'', that ``every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic.'' For me, like our former president, the choice is simple. We must ensure that the sanctity of human life is never compromised. The unborn child has no voice and cannot protect itself. It is up to all of us to guarantee their voices are heard and their right to life is protected. I urge my colleagues to help protect the lives of the most innocent, helpless and defenseless among us and support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Mrs. Gladys Handrop. Mrs. Handrop has successfully completed over fifty-six years of honorable government service to the citizens of Alabama and Florida. Mrs. Handrop was first employed in government service in the Escambia County Alabama Tax Assessors office on March 17, 1947. The Escambia County Florida Tax Assessors office later employed her on December 9, 1952. Mrs. Handrop has been an extremely valuable asset to the agencies and officers by whom she has been employed. She has served under the Honorable Tax Assessors and Property Appraisers Mrs. Frances Botts, Mr. M.B. ``Bill'' Jones, Mr. John R. Jones, Jr. and Mr. Chris Jones. Mrs. Handrop has displayed never failing loyalty to the citizens, by whom she has been employed and has been a tireless political ally to many honored officers to this county and state. Mrs. Handrop is known and respected by legal and real estate professionals throughout Escambia County who she has assisted and guided in their practices. She has consistently been a ``family'' member, friend, confidant, role model, source of strength and mentor to all of those with whom she has worked. On behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to recognize this special person for the example she has set in her community. I offer my sincere thanks for all that she has done for Northwest Florida and this great nation.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I do rise today in support of H.R. 100. This remarkable piece of legislation restates, clarifies, and strengthens the legal protections afforded the courageous men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. The current Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 has had only a few minor changes since World War II. The law is in need of a comprehensive updating to reflect the considerable changes that have taken place in the United States over the past 60 years. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 is one of the most far-reaching laws on the books, and its constitutional authority is derived from article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the War Powers Clause. Its provisions impact all Federal, State, and administrative law. The process that we come to today of updating this act has been 10 years in the making at the hands of numerous military and government officials and has been a project of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs on which I served for over a year. Each provision has been fully vetted and carefully crafted by experts in the areas of civil law and military affairs. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman; the attentive Committee on Veterans Affairs staff; and everyone who has had a hand in this particular project over the last decade. H.R. 100 will bring many major improvements. It will increase coverage in maximum monthly rent of $1,200 to $1,700 to prevent evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers and their dependents. It will expand the right to terminate real property leases by allowing lease termination if a servicemember, while serving, executes a lease and then receives orders for a permanent change of station move or a deployment order of 90 days or more, and it requires a court order before a lessor can terminate a servicemember's installment contract for lease of any personal property, which would apply to all automobile leases. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 100 brings modern relief to our modern Armed Forces and has strong support from the veterans service groups and military associations. As President Bush said, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on the United States Armed Forces. That trust is well placed and our valiant servicemembers deserve to have their burdens, the ones that they and their loved ones face, reduced as they fight the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 100 we are doing our duty to help ease those burdens.

Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida

Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Liza Jackson Preparatory School in Fort Walton Beach, Florida on their recent designation as a Model Charter School. As one of only six schools in the state of Florida to receive this designation, Liza Jackson Preparatory has proven itself to be in a class of its own when it comes to the education of our young individuals in Northwest Florida. It is an honor and a privilege to express my sincere congratulations to the entire Liza Jackson Preparatory community on their well-deserved recognition. Founded by a group of education professionals who wanted more from public education than what was available through the traditional district schools, dedicated staff and extraordinarily involved parents have built Liza Jackson Preparatory into the remarkable institution that it is today. It is a place where the children come first and are taught to obtain the highest levels of achievement that they can. Liza Jackson Preparatory prides itself on bringing together its dedicated parents in an effort to help guide and design the school's mission. Liza Jackson Preparatory used information gathered by organized parent groups to write its charter, which was subsequently submitted to the Okaloosa County's school board in 2000 and unanimously approved. Initially, the school opened its doors to 560 students in August of 2001 and today I am proud to say that enrollment is filled to capacity with an additional 700 children on the waiting list. Mr. Speaker, over its first 2 years, Liza Jackson Preparatory School has shown that it is succeeding in its mission; to provide a comprehensive approach to education in order for students to successfully compete in the global community. On this occasion, I offer my sincere and heartfelt congratulations to Liza Jackson Preparatory School on their designation as a Model Charter School, and wish them the greatest of success in all that is to come.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time and I do want to associate myself with the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce because I also believe we need an inventory. However, I am a cosponsor of this amendment for two different reasons. One in particular was addressed in a letter that was sent to the leadership of this body and to the body of the Senate. It has been signed by the Governor of the State of Florida, both United States Senators, and all but one of the members of the Florida delegation. One of the issues that has not been discussed on the floor this morning, Mr. Chairman, though, is a concern that is shared by the United States military. With the closure of Vieques in Puerto Rico, the United States has been heavily dependent on the 724-square mile testing range at Eglin Air Force Base. It is a complex of land with quite a bit of testing ranges. Also, though, there are 86,500 square miles of water ranges off the coast of Florida that stretches from the panhandle all the way down to the Florida Keys. Drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico will generate frequent civilian supply flights as well as create additional maritime traffic in the area. This will in turn prevent much of this airspace from being used for live fire tests of new weapons systems as well as limit the U.S. Navy from conducting carrier battle group flight operations. This long-term mission will be undermined and military training exercises will be hindered if petroleum companies were allowed to explore the area. Now more than ever is absolutely the worst time to hamstring our United States military. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) agreeing to accept this amendment and again I would say that I do support the energy bill, including drilling in ANWR. However, I have for the State of Florida and the other coastal areas a unique interest in this particular amendment. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 9, 2003. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington,

Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida

Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, Turkey has been our friend and I assume still desires to be an ally of the United States. I have visited Turkey. It is a beautiful country and they have fought side by side with many of our soldiers. Yes, they supported our efforts with Operation Northern Watch. Yes, we support their immerging democracy, but it is important for them to understand that there are consequences to their actions. Mr. Chairman, when we as Members of Congress cast a vote there are consequences. Earlier this year we asked for their help and they voted ``no''. Well not they want our help and I'm voting ``no''. I think we spend too much money in foreign aid, money that could be used for tax relief, building a strong defense, and paying down the debt. This week, Turkey agreed to help with resupply and humanitarian aid and assumes that Uncle Sam is going to pull out his checkbook and write another billion- dollar check without batting an eye. Mr. Chairman, at a time when our veterans have to wait months to see a doctor and our servicemen in Iraq are risking their lives and chemical attack for the preservation of liberty, isn't it time for Uncle Sam to stop sending blank checks to fair-weather allies?

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of this nation's most dedicated citizens, Sergeant James W. Hallman, Jr. On February 24, 2003, we lost James when he was senselessly gunned down during a morning stroll in Cantonment, the randomly chosen victim of a crime that has no explanation. We will forever miss James, but his impact and influence on our Northwest Florida community will never be forgotten. A 34-year veteran of the Pensacola Police Department, James was the epitome of every law enforcement officer in the world. James was awarded the prestigious Silver Cross from the department in 1989 for going above and beyond the call of duty when he attempted to rescue two children near the 17th Avenue boat ramp. It was that dedication and determination to serve his community to the furthest lengths of his abilities that made him a hero to all and an officer to whom so many have tried to model themselves after. Probably best known as the ``Candy Man,'' James could always be found passing out candy to children when he was out patrolling schools and housing developments. As Chief John Mathis said at his funeral, ``there is little doubt in my mind that right now, James is passing out candy to angels in heaven.'' James' dedication to serving his community did not end upon his retirement from the police force in 1998. He was a member of the East Brent Baptist Church, the Brownsville Masonic Lodge, 32 Degree Scottich Rite and York Rite Mason, and the Hadji Shrine Temple. He was a man who lived to serve his community and for that we will be forever grateful. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere and heartfelt condolences to the family of Sgt. James W. Hallman for their loss. His friends knew him as a kind man with an easy laugh and his coworkers knew him more for putting his fingers in his pocket to pull out candy than for putting his hand on his gun belt. On this such occasion, we honor one of America's greatest citizens, Sgt. James W. Hallman, Jr., whose legacy will live on long beyond his passing.

Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida

Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 917, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, South Carolina, as the ``Floyd Spence Post Office Building.'' Floyd Spence began his political career as a Democrat in the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1956, but he is remembered for having the foresight and the courage to switch parties. In 1962, he became the first member of the General Assembly to switch to the Republican Party, which helped pioneer the development of the two-party system in South Carolina. In 1966, he was elected as a Republican to the South Carolina Senate where he served as the Senate Minority Leader. In 1971, Congressman Spence was elected to the Ninety-second Congress, and represented South Carolina's Second Congressional district for thirty years. During his tenure, he served in a numerous positions of leadership: For thirteen years, he was the Ranking Member of the Ethics Committee. In the 104th Congress, he was elected to represent the Tidewater Region on the Republican Policy Committee. He also served as Chairman of the Committee on National Security and after serving as Ranking Member, became Chairman of the Armed Services Committee following the 1995 Republican takeover of the House. One of the longest-serving Republicans in the House of Representatives, Floyd Spence maintained one of the highest voting attendance records, while consistently supporting a strong national defense and fiscal integrity. Spence once said, ``I make no bones about the fact my Number One priority is defending this country.'' He drew his passion for the military from his own experiences. After graduating from the University of South Carolina in 1952, Spence was commissioned as an ensign in the U.S. Navy and served aboard the USS Carter Hall (LSD-3) and the LSM-397. He was the Group Commander of all Naval Reserve Units in Columbia, South Carolina, and was the Commanding Officer of a Naval Reserve Surface Division. After more than 40 years in the United States Naval Reserve, the Congressman retired as a Captain in 1988. Spence was a member of the American Legion, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Congressman Spence was a longtime Pentagon booster from a state that, like my home state of Florida, benefited greatly from his advocacy. He supported the Reagan administration military buildup and opposed the size of post-Cold Ware defense cuts made during the Clinton administration. Congressman Spence was known for his amiable ways. Although opponents often criticized the lack of his own legislation, Spence was a proud voice against big Washington government and he resisted introducing federal legislation. Mr. Speaker, Floyd Spence was recognized around the world as an authority on defense issues and Communism. His tireless efforts on behalf of our national defense are a testimony to his enduring will to serve and to triumph in the face of adversity. Here is Washington and at home, he was recognized as a man of fiscal integrity and true legislative restraint. As President Bush stated upon his death in 2001, Floyd Spence will be remembered as a true friend of the men and women in our armed services and as a servant of his fellow South Carolinians. He was a leader of great courage and determination. Mr. Speaker, although I did not have the opportunity to serve with Congressman Spence, I learned a great deal from his example. It is with great admiration that I today support the dedication of the Floyd Spence Post Office Building to a true American patriot.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 104, a measure to honor our men and women in uniform and the families who support them. Mr. Speaker, the meaning of this resolution strikes close to home because many men and women from my district are currently deployed overseas or they are in the cue to be deployed. There must be a remarkable level of stress associated with deployment. Uncertainty can be the largest contributor to this anxiety. Uncertain where they will be sent, uncertain as to what they will see. But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, there is no uncertainty in what they must do. I know first hand that those airmen from the Air Force Special Operations Command, based at Hurburt Field, are of the best trained, best equipped members in our United States Armed Forces. They go hand in hand with the Rangers who trained at Camp Rudder in the Northwest Florida swamps, the sailors who trained at Pensacola Naval Air Station and Whiting field, the Air Force Reservists from Duke Field and the airmen from the 33rd Fighter Wing, the Nomads, from Eglin Air Force Base. These are the faces of our forces in Iraq. These men and women, mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, are the people who have volunteered to defend our freedom wherever a defense is needed. They protect the very fabric that gives protestors the right to protest, the editorialist the right to editorialize and the security where we can move about our day, completing our routine duties, without fear of oppression or persecution based on our simple, God-given rights. As you, Mr. Speaker, I've seen many object to our efforts to liberate Iraq. I am deeply troubled by their lack of understanding as to what our troops are battling but at the same time I am proud of our Nation and the beacon of light we shine around the world--that those objections are permitted. Nobody here expects everyone to agree with every policy implemented. But I have yet to see a single protest against the Iraqi regime in downtown Baghdad. I would highly doubt the citizens in Iraq are truly comfortable with living a life of terror at the hands of their own government. I doubt they move about their daily routines without fear of persecution. I know they cannot assemble to oppose the government or publicize their written thoughts that run contrary to the views of the ruling regime. Mr. speaker, we here in the United States, Western Europe and scores of other countries are fortunate to live in a land where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are abundant, and I would submit, taken for granted. I look forward to the Iraqi people living in the same type of land and I thank the troops for bringing them to our welcoming arms. May God bless and protect our men and women in Uniform and continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. MILLER of Florida

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th Anniversary of the Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire Department. The Myrtle Grove Volunteer Fire Department, consisting of about two dozen men and women, made it first fire run on March 6, 1953. The station was originally a single-bay building at the corner of 69th Avenue and Lillian Highway. The present building, at Lillian and 72nd Avenue, was completed in 1978. The community and volunteer firefighters raised the money together by knocking on doors. Over 1,200 calls were taken last year by firefighters, both paid and volunteer, who work from the station to guard the Myrtle Grove area. This responsiveness has given the volunteer firefighters the credibility of professionals. The Myrtle Grove company is a family-oriented group. Assistant Fire Chief Robert Jordan is the successor and grandson of the original fire chief John ``Pap'' Rolfs Sr. Carl Jordan, father of Robert, served as Assistant Chief for thirty years. Everyone, who serves in the station, is known to have close relationships with one another. On behalf of the United States Congress and the people of Myrtle Grove, I would like to recognize this group of people for the standard of excellence and bravery that they have shown in their community. I offer my sincere thanks for all that they have done for Northwest Florida and this great Nation.