Floor Statements

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.