Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to accept the amendment. Your amendment, I think, is a good one.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. We all want better fuel economy. However, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment for a number of reasons. There are times when throwing additional money at a problem is not going to solve it, and this is one of those times. All that is needed here is time. Giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more money will not speed up the process whereby fuel economy standards would be raised. Even if Congress passed a bill tomorrow ordering NHTSA to raise fuel economy standards, it would take a minimum of 9 months for a rule to be proposed and finalized. This is because NHTSA would need the detailed product plans from every major auto manufacturer on every model they make before they could draft such a rule, and assembling these documents takes time. Moreover, under law, there would have to be a reasonable comment period of 90 days so the public could weigh in on any proposed rule. Finally, any proposed rule would have to be cleared by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, and that is just the beginning. Auto makers also need time, which they are provided under the law, to retool their product lines to comply with the new regulations. For instance, the auto makers are already developing their product lines for the 2010 model year. As I said at the beginning, this just takes time, roughly 27 months worth of time. NHTSA has already been tasked with studying the feasibility and effects of reducing the use of fuel for automobiles. This report, required by section 773 of the energy bill, is due to Congress later this year. I would also like to point out to Members that this committee has already significantly increased funding for NHTSA's CAFE office over the past several years. The office, which was funded at $60,000 in fiscal year 2001, was funded at almost $1.3 million last year. Giving NHTSA's CAFE office an extra $6.7 million would likely result in the money simply being unspent. I am unsure what benefit will be gained by the public if the CAFE office were to be given $6.5 million that they realistically cannot spend. Certainly, it would not result in fuel economy standards being raised faster, which I assume is the gentlewoman's ultimate intent. So I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The account he seeks to increase is transit research, not fuel research, and I appreciate his sentiment, but we already gave more than the guarantees, and the guarantees are killing other programs, both transportation and everything else. Repeatedly I see already that the Treasury continues to get hit over and over. We provide a greater level of funding in 2007 to address two problems. We needed to fix a problem with SAFETEA-LU since the authorizing committee identified more projects and activities than were provided for under the guarantees. We covered that problem and found the money for the fix in order to keep the program going. We added these funds to cover some initiatives important to other Members. The gentleman proposes to add money for alternative fuels research. However, most of that research is funded out of DOE and NHTSA. This account is for research into transit, as I repeated, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have always felt very strongly about Mr. Miller and his ideas. I do have a problem with this particular amendment. I oppose any amendment to continue the Brownfields Program, which is recommended for elimination as part of a broad sweep of lower priority programs. We must reduce or eliminate these duplicative programs in order to free up the funds for the highest priorities in HUD, which is, among other things, assistance to extremely low-income families and restoring funds for community development. Last year Congress recognized the lack of use of this program and rescinded $10 million in unused prior-year appropriations. The money wasn't being spent. The activities of the Brownfields Program remain, as they have been, eligible uses for CDBG funds. States and communities can use these funds for this purpose if they choose to do so. In addition, there are nearly two dozen Federal programs that can help communities in one way or another to assess, clean up and reuse brownfield sites. EPA's Brownfield Program has awarded 883 assessment grants totaling $225.4 million, 202 revolving loan fund grants totaling $186.7 million, 238 cleanup grants totaling $42.7 million. By comparison, HUD's program has been extremely slow and funds are often used as a loan loss reserve, rather than as grants for reconstructing sites. HUD grants are a tiny fraction of project development costs. They represent just 2.3 percent of the total development costs on average. For each HUD dollar, there was $28 in private and $12 in State and local funds committed with an average of five State, local, and private sources of funding or financing for each project. HUD funding is not critical to any decision to proceed with a project or makes any difference to the completion of a project. This amendment, and we are being hit already early in title II, this amendment cuts the IRS's Business Systems Modernization Program by $15 million. While it appears this account is $45 million above the President's request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS accounts. In fact, BSM is currently funded below last year's level. Cutting this $15 million will force IRS to lay off many of the 317 personnel. Let me repeat that: 317 personnel who are currently working on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of IRS legacy systems. So it is for those reasons that I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 5576 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 865, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; an amendment by Ms. Harris or Mr. Davis of Alabama regarding funding for Public Housing Capital Fund, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts regarding funding limitation on tenant-based section 8 vouchers, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain highway projects in Illinois; an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain highway projects in Illinois; an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain highway projects in Illinois; an amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding certain IRS enforcement activities; an amendment by Mr. Al Green of Texas regarding funding for the HUD- FHIP program; an amendment by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California regarding funding for the HUD Community Development Fund; an amendment by Mr. Thomas regarding section 209 of this bill; an amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the funding level for tenant- based section 8 vouchers; an amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding funding level for the Public Housing Capital Fund; an amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the funding level for the HOPWA program; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas to change the funding availability for the HOME downpayment assistance program; an amendment by Mr. Jindal to make eligible certain individuals for HUD project-based rental assistance; an amendment by Ms. Harris regarding funding levels for the HUD Elderly and Disabled program; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding eligibility for HUD elderly housing; an amendment by Ms. Slaughter regarding the funding level for HUD lead-based paint activities; an amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding Election Assistance College Poll Work Program; an amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts regarding section 325 of this bill; an amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for HUD section 108 loan guarantee program; an amendment by Mr. Shays regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board; an amendment by Mr. Shays regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board; an amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding funding for HIDTA program; an amendment by Mrs. Maloney regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board; an amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding funding level for OPM administrative expense; an amendment by Mr. Baird regarding funding limitation on transportation projects that fail to comply with section 1928 of SAFETEA-LU; an amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York regarding the 10th anniversary of TWA Flight 800; an amendment by Mr. Cleaver regarding item No. 87 of section 1702 of SAFETEA-LU; an amendment by Mr. Cuellar regarding limitation on obligations; an amendment by Ms. DeLauro regarding funding limitation on corporate expatriation; an amendment by Mr. Doolittle regarding funding limitation on FEC certifications; an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding funding limitation on purchase of alternative fuel vehicles; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail in California; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Fairfax County Virginia Park Authority field improvements in Annandale, Virginia; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburg, New York; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on William Faulkner Museum in Oxford, Mississippi; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on multipurpose facility in Yucaupa, California; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on renovations to a city-owned pool in Banning, California; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Agricenter Interchange in Tulare, California; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Fairmont Gateway Connector System in West Virginia; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on road improvements in Monroe County, New York; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on the Bakersfield Beltway system in California; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on construction on the Spirit of South Carolina in Charleston; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on facilities construction in Weirton, West Virginia; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on construction of an Audubon Nature Center in Columbus, Ohio; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on religious activities in Cuba; an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding travel to overseas conferences; an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding a study on State transportation funding; an amendment by Mr. Gordon regarding funding limitation on energy efficiency; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida regarding TRACON consolidation in high-threat urban areas; an amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding reduction of funds; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding denial of noise mitigation grants; an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding regulations on noise mitigation; an amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota regarding funding limitation on FTA ratings system on the Northstar Corridor Rail project; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on naming of certain public works projects or programs; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on contracting practices based on racial preferences; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on construction of a center in Los Angeles; an amendment by Mr. Kirk regarding funding limitation on certain bridge construction in Alaska; an amendment by Ms. Lee regarding funding limitation on restrictions on education travel to Cuba; an amendment by Mr. Lipinski regarding funding for rail line relocation program; an amendment by Mr. McHenry regarding funding limitation on an interchange located at exit 131 in Catawba County, North Carolina; an amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas regarding funding limitation on restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba; an amendment by Mr. Oberstar regarding funding limitation on implementation of a final rule on certain air carriers; an amendment by Mr. Rangel regarding funding limitation on enforcement of economic embargo of Cuba; an amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding competitiveness of U.S. businesses; an amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding IRS services; and an amendment or amendments by Mr. Knollenberg regarding funding in the bill. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept your amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us fully funds the renewal of Section 8 vouchers. Additional funds, especially ones at the expense of critical programs, are simply not necessary. The cost of Section 8 vouchers are remaining constant and in some markets are actually decreasing. As such, this funding level will not only maintain the current level of vouchers, but also provide funds to restore vouchers that may have been lost in recent years. The proposed reduction to the Working Capital Fund leaves a funding level that is not sufficient to support HUD's existing needs and will cause delays in critically needed efforts to modernize antiquated legacy systems in such areas as HUD's core financial systems and FHA mortgage program systems. More importantly, the funds of the Working Capital Fund are the funds that ensure that HUD is able to make Section 8 payments on time. Ironically, cutting this program to boost Section 8 will have a very real and negative impact on the Section 8 program. So therefore, I must urge a no vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. HOPE VI was intended to demolish 100,000 units of severely distressed public housing units, and the program has accomplished that goal. However, there is currently $80 million in unobligated funds going back as far as 10 years-plus. And get this, an additional $2 billion remains in unexpended balances. That is money. These unobligated and unexpened balances mean the program will be spending out for years to come. As of the end of fiscal year 2005, only 23 percent of all projects have been completed. We need to focus on completing what has already been approved, not adding to the already large backlog of unfinished work. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 531 of the bill. We included this correcting provision at the request of the D.C. Education Office to assist them with some funds management. Unfortunately this provision creates an advance appropriation and, therefore, violates the budget resolution. I ask for the amendment's adoption.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to accept the amendment with the provision that it would be at the $750,000 level.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, first let me state that I am a supporter of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. I think it is apparent from the recommended level of funding in our bill. Mr. Chairman, the President requested that this program be transferred to the Department of Justice, a Department not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, at a level of $207 million. Given the wide support for this program, we retain the oversight of the program in the TTHUD subcommittee and increased funding above the President's request $20 million to that $227 million level. I would support my colleague's amount if this were not a zero-sum situation. But this increase has to come from another program, in this case the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. NARA has a projected $12 million shortfall right now, even if they receive full funding for fiscal year 2007. A hiring freeze goes into effect on the beginning of July. A cut of $12 million could result in serious staffing issues at the National Archives. Additionally, there is a projected reduction in research hours and hours open to the public and other measures that have to be taken even with full funding. A $12 million cut would impose further reductions on operating hours, something that I oppose; and I urge my colleagues, therefore, to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, the whole point is that it isn't just one thing; it is two or three things that are the problem. Already, they are down $12 million. Then there is the possibility that yours would strike some more money. Finally, what do they do about the servicing? How do they even get along with that situation when they know they are going to lose some people. They are going to lose some people.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman from Maryland for his interest in this area. I certainly agree that to the extent we can, we should promote and encourage physical activity as a way to prevent chronic health problems. I would just say that I look forward to working with you on this matter and make sure that these efforts lead to some decent results. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 252, line 2 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5522, the fiscal year 2007 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. First, I want to extend my best wishes to Chairman Kolbe for all of the work that he has done. He has done some tremendous work, extraordinary work. I think he has been an invaluable resource for the foreign operations end of things. So I just want to say, in addition he has always been receptive, been very responsive to Members' input on a very, very difficult bill. Mr. Kolbe, I really appreciate having you around. I also want to wish you the very best in the future in whatever you decide to move into. I also want to commend the ranking member, Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Kolbe and Mrs. Lowey, I think, have been a great team for this particular committee. I convey my best. You are not leaving obviously, Mrs. Lowey, so can you stick around. But I convey the very best to her and the work that she has done. We found common ground on a variety of issues, and together I think we achieved some pretty important results. I look forward to continuing that in the future. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee staff for the hard work that they have performed in addressing the many issues in this bill. It is a testament to them that the bill runs through the process so smoothly every year despite the number of demands and challenges that they face. Once again, Chairman Kolbe, his staff, Ranking Member Lowey have crafted an excellent bill that balances all of the many priorities the United States has around the world. Our foreign assistance fosters democratic and transparent governments, promotes human rights and helps millions of people in need. While less than 1 percent of our entire annual budget, foreign assistance serves as a main pillar of our foreign policy and is an integral part of our national security. As always, assistance to the Middle East is the central part of this bill. It provides the full amount that the President requested for Israel, including both economic and security assistance. It also provides $40 million for refugee resettlement in Israel. Just as importantly, it lays down the groundwork for this program in the future. It also provides no direct funding for the Hamas-infected Palestinian Authority. However, it does provide limited humanitarian assistance under strict guidelines and checks to ensure absolutely no funding reaches Hamas. Additional funding for Lebanon, Egypt and other Middle East countries is important to support reform efforts. It is particularly important to note the continued funding for the Middle East Partnership Initiative which further reforms the region. Mr. Chairman, I am also particularly pleased that the bill provides $62 million in economic assistance to Armenia. I look forward to working with Chairman Kolbe to ensure that the final bill includes adequate funding for Armenia. This funding is especially important since Turkey and Azerbaijan continue to obstruct transportation and infrastructure routes into and out of Armenia with the intention of forcing Armenia into economic isolation. The bill maintains parity in U.S. military assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is critical to the overall policy toward the South Caucasus. There is also no chance in section 907 language with respect to Azerbaijan. The bill includes other important funding, such as $2 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which provides foreign assistance to specific countries if and only if they meet specific criteria. It also includes substantial funding to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS. Mr. Chairman, this is a responsible bill. It is the result of significant oversight. It is fiscally sound and it focuses funding on the priorities that will advance our interests. For all of those reasons, I strongly support the bill. I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this bill on the floor today.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong objection to H.R. 5449, a bill to modify bargaining requirements for proposed changes to the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation Administration. I currently serve as the Chairman of the Appropriations Sub-Committee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD and other agencies. This legislation today would put an enormous strain on my committee's resources and force all programs under my jurisdiction into greater budgetary peril. Simply put, a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5449 could cost the FAA $1.9 billion over the next 5 years. The FAA would be forced to divert funds from critical safety initiatives--such as air traffic control modernization--to cover the cost of sky-rocketing controller salaries. I understand that air-traffic controllers provide a valuable service to the flying public and that they work hard to ensure safety and security. I also understand that due to the unique ability of their union--an ability that is not available to every other federal employee union--they have negotiated some of the highest wages in federal service. The average air-traffic controller earns $173,000 per year, and their salaries have gone up 75 percent in the past 8 years. The top 100 NATCA union members earn an average salary of $197,000. How does this compare with other federal employees? Well, quite well I would say. These controllers make more than Members of Congress ($165,200), Cabinet Secretaries ($180,100), and almost as much as Supreme Court Justices ($199,200) and the Vice President of the United States ($208,700). The comparison is even more striking when we weigh their salary levels against other critical safety, security, and health professions. In my home area of Detroit, an average NATCA member makes $118,490. Compare that to the average firefighter ($42,100), police officer ($48,770), or registered nurse ($59,380). And, this kind of pay disparity is not unique to my home area, but is consistent across the Nation. At a time when our federal workforce is stretched at home and abroad to protect our Nation, there is no justification for air traffic controllers to enjoy unparalleled salary hikes, especially when our military personnel, homeland security officials, first responders, and other government employees do not receive the same treatment. Some may try to indicate that a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5449 would be a ``free'' vote to give to the unions. However, nothing could be further from the truth. If H.R. 5449 is enacted, it will effectively render the new FAA/NATCA control null and void, and cause FAA costs and salaries to spiral out of control. The new NATCA/FAA contract would be superseded by the previous contract, reached between the Clinton Administration and NATCA in 1998, and the continuation of the 1998 contract would cost tax- payers $1.9 billion in the short-term, and $3.8 billion in the long- term. It should be obvious that a cost of $3.8 billion tax-payer dollars is far from ``free.'' A vote for this bill is not about protecting workers wages and stopping the FAA from slashing controllers' salaries. To be crystal clear: the FAA has offered to protect the compensation of each and every current controller. A new contract would only apply to new hires, and not affect the salaries of existing controllers. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 5449--a bill that would ban the FAA from reigning in out-of-control controllers' salaries and cost tax- payers and my committee billions of dollars. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this financially reckless legislation that will set a dangerous precedent for years to come.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, next Monday we will honor all that have made the ultimate sacrifice serving and protecting our country. I rise today to honor our disabled veterans still with us that have sacrificed so much. On the last Monday of May every year, Members of this body celebrate Memorial Day by walking in parades, making speeches, and talking to active and retired military men and women. We tell them how much we appreciate their efforts and thank them for their services. We do this proudly as they deserve our respect and admiration for serving this great country. Currently, American troops defend our freedom on many different fronts and veterans are at the forefront of our legislative priorities. The number of veterans coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas increases daily and it is our responsibility to ensure their needs are met. While our veterans may be out of harm's way, our responsibility to them remains. I am introducing legislation to further our commitment to our disabled veterans that have served our country with valor. Currently, every year Congress enacts a cost-of-living adjustment for veterans' disability benefits. We have done this every year since 1978. In fact, both Congress and the President assume this COLA will be enacted every year. My legislation, the Veterans Disability Compensation Automatic COLA Act, would simply make the COLAs for veterans' disability benefits automatic each year. Veterans should not have to depend on Congress adjusting their disability benefits every year. Social Security and Medicare have automatic COLA adjustments. Our veterans deserve to have that same security. Furthermore, because Congress and the President assume this increase in their budget every year, my bill has no budgetary effect. I am also pleased to enter into the Record letters of support from the Disabled American Veterans as well as American Veterans (AMVETS). These veterans service organizations support this bill to assure veterans the COLA they deserve. Mr. Speaker, we cannot and should not assume future Congresses will act to adjust veterans' disability COLAs every year. I ask my colleagues to join me to ensure our veterans get the benefits they deserve without having to rely on a superfluous yearly act by Congress. Disabled American Veterans, Washington, DC, May 22, 2006. Hon. Joe Knollenberg, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Knollenberg: On behalf of the 1.5 million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and its Auxiliary, I write in support of the measure you are introducing today, the Veterans' Disability Compensation Automatic COLA Act. Your bill would protect the benefits of sick and disabled veterans and their dependents by preserving its intent and beneficial purpose. Specifically, the bill would automatically increase the rates of disability compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), and the annual clothing allowance by the percentage of increase in the cost of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index without precluding any other increases deemed necessary in the future. Other benefits such as automobile and housing grants, and burial and plot allowances, for which Congress has regularly enacted legislation to adjust these benefits have had their value seriously eroded. Unless the amounts of disability compensation, DIC, and clothing allowance are periodically adjusted, inflation diminishes the significance and effectiveness of these benefits. Again, I want to thank you for your continued effort to protect and enhance the benefits and services of veterans who are disabled by virtue of their selfless sacrifice and service to our nation, and their dependents. Sincerely, Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director.