Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter that we have from the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation expressing their full support for this Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act. They say, ``As the State agency charged with guaranteeing Federal student loans in the State of New York, HESC is bearing a disproportionate share of the administrative and fiscal consequences of that day. While we are grateful to the United States Education Department for providing guidance on managing the Federal Family Education Loan Program business, we fear they are reaching the limits of their authority in providing the relief we need to address the myriad of business, educational, and human needs thrust upon all of us by this tragedy.'' They add their strong support for this bill.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3086, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001, or the HEROS Act. This important bill provides the Secretary of Education with specific waiver authority under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which governs student financial assistance programs, to provide immediate relief to active-duty students with Federal loans who have been called up because of the war. This waiver authority addresses the need to assist students who are being called up to active duty, those active duty military being relocated, and those students directly affected by the attacks. The events of September 11 changed our lives forever, and our peaceful way of life was shattered. Thousands of law-abiding citizens never realized their lives would end instantly in such an atrocity. Earlier that day, I watched in horror as the second plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Later, when I stepped outside my house to go to the Capitol, a neighbor running by said, Congressman, it is going to be a rough day; they just blew up the Pentagon. I could see the smoke from the end of the street. So to say that that moment was surreal is an understatement. In response to the September 11 terrorist attack, many men and women who serve in our Nation's armed services are being called to active duty, including many college and university students. Many of these students participate in Federal financial aid programs and will be put in the difficult position of having to make student loan payments while on active duty unless Congress and the Department of Education act now to provide relief. As America mobilizes for the war against terrorism, students serving in our armed services need our full support. The Education Secretary needs the authority to act quickly to protect the interests of U.S. students as well as the integrity of the financial aid programs themselves. Under the bipartisan HEROS bill, the Education Secretary can grant waivers so that reservists leaving their jobs and families may be relieved from making student loan payments, for a time; victims' families may be relieved from receiving collection calls from lenders, and consecutive service requirements for loan forgiveness programs may be considered uninterrupted. The waiver authority is similar to that provided to the Secretary during the Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations in 1991. The Secretary of Education is in a unique position to act as ambassador between students, institutions of higher education, and the student aid community to ensure the necessary accommodations are provided to victims, their families, and our military personnel while, at the same time, ensuring the integrity of the student financial assistance programs. The bipartisan HEROS Act also expresses the sense of Congress that higher education institutions should provide a full tuition refund or credit to students who serve in the military during this national emergency and cannot complete a course for academic credit. I believe that we need to do all we can to support our men and women in the military. They should not have to be concerned about financial responsibilities at home while they are focusing on their task of defending our freedom. This legislation will provide relief for the men and women of our military who are defending the freedoms of this great Nation. As families send loved ones into harm's way, the Higher Education Relief Opportunity for Students Act will allow the Secretary of Education to reduce some of the effects of that upheaval here at home. This bill is an indication of the Congress's commitment to our military and to our students and families, as well as to those on the front lines who make higher education accessible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan HEROS Act, and I look forward to swift passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the proposal of my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), and we tried to work through some of these issues, but given what has happened the last few days, it has been impossible to get everything worked out in time. But I do promise to work with the gentlewoman on a separate bill to provide for the other victims that the gentlewoman commented on. I appreciate her efforts on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001. This legislation is simple in its purpose. It grants the Secretary of Education specific waiver authority within Title IV of the Higher Education Act to provide necessary relief to those affected by the recent attacks on America and any subsequent attacks. This waiver authority addresses the need to assist students who are being called up to active duty, those active duty military being relocated, and those students directly affected by the attacks. Mr. Speaker, our citizens have been dramatically affected by the attacks of September 11th. The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001 provides the Secretary of Education the ability to provide relief to affected individuals and institutions where it is deemed necessary while ensuring the integrity of student assistance programs. The Secretary may relax repayment obligations for our active duty armed forces, provide a period of time victims and their families may reduce or delay monthly student loan payments, and assist institutions and lenders with reporting requirements. This bill is specific in its intent--to ensure that as a result of the attacks on the United States on September 11th, and the resulting national emergency declared by the President on September 14th: Affected borrowers of Federal student loans are not in a worse financial position, administrative requirements on affected individuals are minimized without affecting the integrity of the programs, current year income of affected individuals is used to determine need for purposes of financial assistance, and institutions and organizations participating in the Federal student aid programs that are affected by the attacks may receive temporary relief from certain administrative requirements. This legislation will provide relief for the men and women of our military who are defending the freedoms of this great nation. As families send loved ones into harms way, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act will allow the Secretary of Education to reduce some of the effects of that upheaval here at home. The Secretary of Education will report to Congress on the impact of the waivers implemented as a result of this bill and he will also provide recommendations for changes to statutory or regulatory provisions that were the subject of the waivers invoked. I am proud and delighted that 71 of my colleagues have signed on as original cosponsors of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act. It is an indication of the Congress's commitment to our military and to our students and families, as well as to those on the front lines of making higher education available. I look forward to swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my good friend and neighbor from California, for yielding; and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this very important issue. I want to assure my friend that I am very much aware of the Pell grant tuition-sensitivity provisions in current law that limit the ability of California's lowest-income community college students from receiving the maximum Pell grant award. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which has jurisdiction over higher-education issues, I have long been a strong supporter of addressing the tuition-sensitivity provision. The tuition-sensitivity provision in the Higher Education Act precludes students, as the gentleman said, from the lowest-cost institutions, like those attending California community colleges, from receiving their full Pell grant eligibility. This affects almost 180,000 students from the California community college system alone. I want to assure my friend that he has my full commitment to work diligently to find a solution to this problem. I am eager to work with him and others as we move into the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in the next Congress to ensure that all students have access to quality education.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). Madam Speaker, the student loan is a mandatory program, and the money will be there. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I agree with much of what the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), my good friend, has said. There were some real problems in the past. I think we all agree on that. In fact, I have a little chart here that says, although I do not know if my colleagues can see it over there, but it shows the amount of loans that were made annually in 1990 up through 1999. They went from about $12 billion a year in 1990 up until last year, or 1999, $30 billion. So there was a big increase. A lot more people are taking advantage; a lot more people are needing to participate in the student process. There were comments made earlier about default rate and how many people were not repaying their loans; and a lot of corrections, a lot of changes were made. This red line shows that the default rate in 1990 was 22.4 percent. We can see how it has dropped each year, this last year, down to 5.6 percent. There have been tremendous improvements made and none of us want to lose sight of that, and none of us want to go back to where we had those kinds of problems again, and that is why we have taken some very good care in preparing this legislation. At the same time, we do not want to pass up people's opportunities to take advantage of the distance learning that is available. I remember probably over 20 years ago when I served on a local school board, I went to a national conference on education, and the thing that they were saying at that time is that the most futuristic thing, the thing that was really going to happen was distance learning. Well, now it is here; and it is happening. We have to take advantage of it. Let me read a letter from David Sheridan who is Dean of Enrollment Services, Chairman of the Federal Relations Committee from the Eastern Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators at Stevens Institute of Technology. I think he has some very cogent remarks on this. ``Dear Chairman McKeon, I am writing in enthusiastic support of H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. The `50 percent rule' changes are necessary to take down barriers that would become more of a problem in the future. A few years ago, none of us could envision the way technology would shape education by now, and we lack the same foresight to forecast what will be commonplace by the time today's freshmen graduate,'' 4 years from now. ``The volume of courses delivered via the Web, not to mention the academic acceptance and legitimacy thereof, is only going to grow, and not modifying the law now will lead to roadblocks later. The 12-hour rule is similar in that removing it clears the way for commonsense options for the changing face of higher education today. If the Department of Education's job is to put America through school, Congress needs to change the law so that schools and the students can decide what type of instruction and schedule works best for them. The compensation incentive aspect of the Higher Education Act requires further clarification, so the schools and their employees are not punished beyond what I believe were the intentions of Congress when they wrote this segment of the law. ``As always, I thank you, the committee,'' all of us, ``and your staff members for your tireless efforts on behalf of college students everywhere in America. It is my sincere hope that H.R. 1992 will be passed by the current Congress.'' Madam Speaker, I will insert the above-referenced letter and chart into the Record at this time. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, August 29, 2001. Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman, House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing in enthusiastic support of H.R. 1992, The Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. The ``50 percent rule'' changes are necessary to take down barriers that would become more of a problem in the future. A few years ago, none of us could envision the way technology would shape education by now, and we lack the same foresight to forecast what will be commonplace by the time today's freshmen graduate. The volume of courses delivered via the Web (not to mention the academic acceptance and legitimacy thereof) is only going to grow, and not modifying the law now will lead to roadblocks later. The 12-hour rule is similar in that removing it clears the way for common sense options for the changing face of higher education today. If the Department of Education's job is to Put America Through School, Congress needs to change the law so that schools and the students can decide what type of instruction and schedule works best for them. The compensation incentive aspect of the Higher Education Act requires further clarification so that schools and their employees are not punished beyond what I believe were the intentions of Congress when they wrote this segment of the law. As always, I thank you, the Committee and your staff members for your tireless efforts on behalf of college students everywhere in America. It is my sincere hope that H.R. 1992 will be passed by the current Congress. Sincerely, David Sheridan, Dean of Enrollment Services, Chair, Federal Relations Committee, Eastern Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time to speak on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule on H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. This structured rule is needed to maintain the compromise that was reached with this legislation, and as the gentlewoman has just spoken or remarked, it was made to accommodate concerns that were expressed from the other side. An open rule would allow for amendments for an intricate, detailed, sometimes complicated statute that we will address in the next Congress. Before favorably reporting this bill, the Committee on Education and the Workforce carefully reviewed the provisions within H.R. 1992 and gave thoughtful consideration to the issues surrounding the legislation. H.R. 1992 has as its mission to open the doors of higher education to those people for which it has been and continues to be closed, and we should thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for the work that he did on the Web-based Commission in bringing this bill to the floor at this time. The bill is quite simple in nature, has enjoyed bipartisan support, and was passed out of committee on a vote of 31 to 10, as well as having the support of many in the higher education community, including the American Council on Education. Stan Ikenberry spoke on this issue and encouraged us to move rapidly on this legislation. He represents 1,800 of our higher education schools across the country. Also, we have support from many others in the higher education community. The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, representing 3,100 schools, has strongly supported this bill. The goals of these and other supporters of H.R. 1992 remains constant, to provide additional access to higher education, as the ACE stated; adapt to the needs and demand of today's diverse student population. Providing for a structured rule allows Members to consider a bill that had undergone careful analysis by the committee without side- stepping the process that provided for thoughtful negotiation and cooperation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this rule and allow us to move forward in bringing H.R. 1992 to the floor for a vote.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform. (Mr. CASTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1992, and I want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for the leadership that he has rendered to the committee this year and for helping us get this bill to the floor. We are here to consider a bill, H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001, that will open the doors of higher education to those who may not otherwise have an opportunity to walk through that door. I know we have heard some friendly opposition from the other side, but we have bent over backwards on this bill. We held a hearing that was attended by members of the community that expressed broad support for the measures in this bill. We scheduled a subcommittee hearing, which we postponed due to some concerns that the other side have to give sufficient time to move forward. We finally held that and moved the bill out of subcommittee. Then we moved to full committee. It was passed out of full committee after giving everyone a chance to have full discussion and amendments, and it was voted on in a bipartisan way, 31 to 10. I am reminded of the story of the gentleman that said I want to travel to California from Washington, and I am not going to leave until every light is green between here and California. Sometimes we have to start and move forward and take action, and I think now is the time. I am grateful to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) for introducing H.R. 1992, the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. The service of the gentleman from Georgia as cochairman of the Web- based Education Commission provided valuable insight into the development of this legislation. He also serves as vice chairman of our higher education subcommittee, the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, and is a great leader on that committee. H.R. 1992 is a wonderful first step in implementing some of the recommendations put forward by the Web-based Education Commission as it expands the use of the Internet to increase access to educational opportunities. This legislation makes minor changes to the Higher Education Act, minor changes that will result in major opportunities for the Nation's students. In calling the changes minor, I am in no way diminishing their potential impact. In making these changes, we took great care to ensure that the integrity and stability of the student aid programs within the Higher Education Act are preserved and protected. The concerns that the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) had of problems in the past are well recognized. And we understand those concerns, and we have taken adequate steps to make sure that those are preserved. Through reporting requirements imposed on institutions, as well as a report to Congress required of the Secretary, we will be kept informed of the outcome of this legislation in a timely manner. This will serve us well as we head into reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which will take place in 2003. The provisions within this bill and the innovation it will allow us has the support of many in the higher education community. As many of my colleagues know, my subcommittee has been working on the Fed. Up initiative. This project identifies needless or overly burdensome regulations within the Higher Education Act and will try to bring some sense to the regulations that the schools must deal with on a daily basis. Of the more than 3,000 Fed. Up responses we have received and catalogued, and we are not completely finished. More than 40 commenters have requested that the 12-hour rule be eliminated, and H.R. 1992 does that in response to their request. Madam Speaker, 16 commenters requested that the 50 percent rule be eliminated or modified; and H.R. 1992, in response to their request, does that. Nineteen commenters have requested that the incentive compensation rules be clarified, and H.R. 1992 does that. We are simply being responsive to our constituents. I have also received many letters in support of H.R. 1992. Those letters include the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, a group of 3,100 schools; the American Council on Education that represents 1,900 schools; the California Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators; the California Student Aid Commission; EdFund; Stevens Institute of Technology; the California Postsecondary Education Commission; the University of Wisconsin Extension; and many others offering their endorsement of this fine bill. One letter that was very timely came from St. Leo University, and I would like to enter this letter as part of the Record. St. Leo University is the sixth largest provider of higher education to military-related personnel in the United States. It is also the first college or university to grant a bachelor's degree on an Air Force base. Its President, Arthur Kirk, wrote to support immediate passage of H.R. 1992. Sixty percent of St. Leo's second-term enrollments for their military students are for online courses, and it is not too much to say that the events of the past several weeks will only accelerate that trend. We need to make sure those men and women whose lives are being disrupted to defend the freedoms of this great country and the families left at home have as many options as possible to continue their education. The Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001 provides a way to accomplish that goal. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1992, vote yes on the future of educational opportunities, vote yes on the future of our Nation's students, and vote yes on the future of this country.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my good friend from Massachusetts on his point on waiting for the demonstration project. The Department of Education, who is administering the project, has the first year's report and they support the bill. They found no problem in moving forward at this time with the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a new member of the committee who comes with great expertise. We called him, for many years, Coach.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding the time. Just to make a couple of points, the Mink substitute would eliminate the needed reforms that we have been talking about for the 12-hour rule. It would eliminate the needed reforms on the incentive compensation provisions. It would gut this important legislation and continue to hinder the ability of institutions of higher education to offer information and instruction to all Americans through the Internet and nontraditional courses. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with us in defeating the Mink substitute and vote to provide relief to colleges and universities who are working to offer educational opportunities to all students.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a new member of our committee, not a new Member of Congress, a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would like to take some time to respond to the concerns that have been raised by my good friend and ranking member on the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), about the need to make these changes now, just 2 years before we start to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. In a hearing before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Dr. Stanley Ikenberry, then president of the American Council on Education, now a professor of political science at the University of Illinois, testified that Congress should quickly consider H.R. 1992, as the Department has been unable or unwilling to make changes as part of the regulatory process. By making the changes now, Congress will have 2 years to monitor the impact of the amendments and can easily make any necessary mid-course corrections as part of the coming reauthorization. More importantly, Mr. Ikenberry stated, ``We need to make the changes now, because distance education is changing the postsecondary education landscape so quickly. If changes are not made now, we will have to wait until after the higher education reauthorization and, most likely, until after the rulemaking process that follows a reauthorization. This could easily mean a delay of 4 or 5 years.'' Mr. Speaker, 4 or 5 years to a 17- or 18-year-old, they could lose their whole education process during this period of time; and I think it is very important that we are expeditious. Mr. Ikenberry's most compelling case to enact legislation now is the fact that we have the opportunity to gather needed information to address this issue for the next reauthorization. It will help us in that process. At the same time, we have an opportunity to expand access to higher education to those with the most need and to those who cannot afford to take classes on a traditional quarter or semester basis. I encourage my colleagues to strongly support and vote for H.R. 1992.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of our National Defense Authorization Act. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act. Before I begin in earnest, I would like to pause for just a moment to pay my respect to someone who is not with us today, our good friend Floyd Spence. In my entire time on the House Armed Services Committee, I have not experienced an authorization bill without him. I will miss Floyd greatly and I know that I join my colleagues in sending our thoughts and prayers to his family. I want to thank Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Skelton for their leadership, hard work, and dedication to our men and women in uniform. Because of their efforts, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 reflects the strong bipartisan values of the committee and this legislative body in favor of securing and maintaining the most capable defense force in the world. Madam Chairman, H.R. 2586 represents this committee's and Congress' desire to rebuild our Nation's Armed Forces after years of neglect. Specifically, the legislation reflects the President's request for the largest increase in defense spending since the mid-1980s. In total, the President request and the House Armed Services Committee approved a $33 billion increase from the fiscal year 2001 spending level. Madam Chairman, I want to highlight two specific areas where I believe the committee has done exemplary work. First, the committee approved the largest military pay raise since 1982, significant construction efforts to improve the facilities in which military personnel live and work, and substantial increases to readiness accounts that support operations, maintenance, and training. Second, the committee fully funds the required upgrades for the B-2 bomber. By including $123 million for Link 16 and in-flight replanning, the committee has given the B-2 the required equipment to accomplish the job its capable of doing. Furthermore, the committee has asked the Air Force to report back on the number of B-2s it will need to accomplish the mission set out by Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper's Global Strike Task Force. While I believe that more B-2s would accomplish the mission, it is important that the Air Force provide us with this data so that Congress can appropriate the needed funds to support their mission. In view of last week's events and the commencement of Operation Infinite Justice, swift action by this legislative body will further demonstrate the unity and determination of this great Nation to overcome the challenges before us. May God bless America and the brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line to defend it.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 339 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to speak of a senseless tragedy that recently occurred in my district. On August 31st, a Santa Clarita sheriff's deputy lost his life in the line of duty. Deputy Hagop ``Jake'' Kuredjian was killed as he assisted agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. As they attempted to serve a search warrant at the home of a person suspected of impersonating a federal agent and for stockpiling weapons, the suspect mortally wounded Jake. A native of Alepo, Syria, Jake immigrated with his mother and two brothers to Michigan in the 1970's after the untimely death of his father. He became a citizen of the United States at the age of 21. Jake felt his job was his calling and proudly wore badge #4144 when the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department hired him in 1984. Jake was a courageous deputy who worked diligently to make our community a better place to live. He was awarded the sheriff's Gold Meritorious Conduct medal in 1988 for rescuing a woman from the side of a cliff. Shortly before his death, Jake finally realized his long held dream of becoming a motorcycle officer. Deputy Kuredjian was a hero in the true sense of the word. He willingly put his life on the line when he put a badge on his uniform. Yet he was more than a deputy; he was a good neighbor and a good friend who attempted to make a positive impact on the Santa Clarita Valley. He readily gave his time to volunteer for the SCV Special Olympics and to help organize events such as the Downed Officers Support Ride. Jake was an eternal optimist, a devout Christian and a positive role model for our youth. Jake is survived by his mother, Anahid Kuredjian, his two brothers, Garo and Raffi Kuredjian, and his fiancee, Theresa Richardson. He left many friends and coworkers who will miss, but never forget him. There are no words to express the magnitude of our sorrow nor the depth of our gratitude. We can only say a simple and heartfelt thank you to Jake Kuredjian and to all the men and women who courageously protect and serve the citizens of America.