Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to recognize Francis Brillhart, a businessman, volunteer, and mayor who has served the community of Holden, Missouri for over 43 years. On January 3, 2010, Mr. Brillhart celebrated his 75th birthday.

Francis Brillhart has owned and operated Brillhart Music for the past 4 decades. In that time, he has donated or provided at reduced cost audio equipment and sound systems to local churches, nonprofits, and service organizations throughout the community. Though his work with this Holden staple consumed much of his time, Mr. Brillhart's true passion was serving others.

Serving on the Johnson County Real Estate Board, Emergency Management Board, and the Community Health Board, Mr. Brillhart worked diligently so that his fellow citizens could lead better, safer, and more comfortable lives.

The hallmark of his lifetime of service has been the 11\1/2\ years he served as Mayor of Holden. During that time, Mr. Brillhart ensured that government worked for the people he represented. With his family, friends, and neighbors in mind, he made tough decisions that benefited all. He left big shoes to fill in Holden's City Hall, and he will not soon be forgotten.

Madam Speaker, I trust that my fellow Members of the House will join me in wishing a very happy birthday to Francis Brillhart, a man who has bettered the lives of countless residents of Holden, Missouri.

Madam Speaker, on August 17, 2009, I became a cosponsor of H.R. 3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act. This legislation, which passed the House of Representatives on October 8, 2009, by a vote of 416 to 0, was designed to make certain changes in the tax code to assist members of the military in becoming homeowners. Thankfully, the legal changes envisioned in H.R. 3590 were included in a different bill to extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit that received bipartisan support and was signed into law by the President.

After the military tax issue was resolved, the Senate Majority Leader used H.R. 3590 as the legislative vehicle to pass health care reform. On December 23, 2009, the Senate adopted a manager's amendment to H.R. 3590 which removed the provisions of the bill as it passed the House and replaced them with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The amendment also changed the title of the bill.

A public search of legislation I have cosponsored in the 111th Congress shows that I am a cosponsor of the original H.R. 3590. I take this opportunity to clarify that I cosponsored and voted for the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act, not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Madam Speaker, I come from Missouri--the Show-Me State-- where people conduct their lives with a sensible skepticism and a great devotion to common sense and patriotism.

Missourians pride themselves in being straight shooters. They work hard and play by the rules. They look at issues with a pragmatism that more Americans should possess. They, like I, have been angered by the greedy behavior of Wall Street tycoons who helped get our country into its current economic mess.

Their anger is amplified when they hear news stories, as all Americans have in the

past few days, about how some of Wall Street's biggest banks are planning to give millions of dollars in bonuses. I am outraged by this. I have to ask myself, ``Where is the common sense of these Wall Street bankers? Where is their patriotism? Where is their shared sense of sacrifice?''

I grew up during World War II. When this Nation was in trouble then, all Americans stood together; all Americans made sacrifices--the working men and women of this country and the barons of industry. This current crowd on Wall Street just doesn't seem to get that. And that is a shame.

It was important for the government to help save the American financial system from ruin. It was close to going off a desperately high cliff in the autumn of 2008. That would have been devastating for the Missouri families I represent. Was I angered that the government had to take emergency action? You bet I was--as were the folks in whose shoes I stand each day in Washington.

Action was needed in large part because Wall Street tycoons had gambled with risky mortgage backed securities and because the government was not shining its regulatory light fully on these risky investments. And, many Wall Street firms rewarded employees with exuberant pay packages based on get-rich-quick financial transactions.

In February 2009, Congress directed Treasury to review and set strict guidelines on executive compensation at financial institutions receiving assistance under the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. Treasury has been doing that under the direction of Kenneth Feinberg, who runs the Office of the Special Master on executive compensation at the department.

I am saddened that Congress would have to create a special office to help this greedy bunch find their moral compass. And, I am even more saddened that Wall Street banks would continue to think it appropriate to cut enormous bonus checks when so many American families are out of work and many others are very deeply concerned about their economic future. Can't the Wall Street crowd see how their pay schemes are interpreted in middle America? Can't they understand that their profits are occurring because the American people made serious sacrifices to right the Nation's economic ship?

I am not yet convinced that the Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve Chairman, or the President have worked hard enough to press this compensation issue with the Wall Street community. That is why Congress has been working on several bills to establish more sensible policies in this area and in financial regulation more broadly.

I fully realize that American companies must retain good workers to be competitive in the global marketplace and it takes pay to do that, but I am angered that executives at firms that received federal taxpayer assistance do not possess the common sense to share in the sacrifices being made by the American people during this tough economic climate. I urge them to take a step back and to reconsider their actions.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to recognize Dorothy Bryant from my hometown of Lexington, Missouri. Mrs. Bryant will be retiring at the end of this year after thirty years of dedicated service to the Lafayette County Sheriffs Department.

Mrs. Bryant began working for the Sheriffs Department on January 21, 1980, and since then has worked for five different Sheriffs of Lafayette County. She has worked for the current Sheriff, Kerrick Alumbaugh, for nine of her thirty years. A loyal and dedicated employee, Mrs. Bryant has worked tirelessly to serve the residents of Lafayette County.

Madam Speaker, Dorothy Bryant has helped keep the people of Lafayette County safe for the past three decades. I trust that my fellow members of the House will join me in wishing her the very best in her well- earned retirement.

Madam Speaker, it is with sadness that I inform the House of the death of my dear friend Lieutenant Colonel George Withers Stier of Lexington, Missouri.

Stier was born in December of 1919 to Earle Taggart Stier and Grace King Stier. After graduating from Wentworth Military Academy with ROTC training, he volunteered for the Army Reserves and applied for Active Duty in 1941.

During World War II, Stier showed his unyielding courage and love of country while flying the B-17 Flying Fortress. During the last of his 16 bombing missions over Germany, he and his crew were shot down and became prisoners of war at Stalag Luft III. Surviving a 50-mile forced march, Stier and his fellow airmen spent over a year as prisoners of war. On April 20, 1945, he was liberated by General George Patton and his 3rd Army's 14th Tank Battalion.

In 1948, Stier married his lovely wife Kathleen Miller Trumbull. The two returned to his hometown of Lexington, Missouri, where they operated Stier's Clothing Store, a family operation since 1906. A dedicated public servant, he served on the City Council and was president of the local Chamber of Commerce. He maintained his connection to Wentworth Military Academy by teaching business courses to our future servicemen and women.

Preceded in death by his wife Kathleen who sadly passed away in 2004, he is survived by his children, Sheila and George.

Madam Speaker, Lt. Col. George Stier was a courageous airman, a loving husband and father, and a dear friend. I trust that my fellow Members of the House will join me in extending their heartfelt condolences to his two children, family, and friends.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. This legislation contains six of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills that have not yet been signed into law by the President. I commend my colleagues for gluing together this very complex measure that invests in important American priorities.

I support a vast majority of this legislation, especially funds that have been directed toward veterans health care, military construction, public safety, health research, education, highways, and international diplomacy. But, I am terribly concerned about other aspects of the bill, namely its $1.1 trillion price tag as well as provisions that would allow federal funds to be used for needle exchange programs and for abortion services in the District of Columbia.

While I cannot lend my support to H.R. 3288, I remain committed to working with my Democratic and Republican colleagues as we finish the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process and begin work on the bills for next year.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives is considering H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. I wish to express my support for this legislation, which would continue a number of expiring provisions of the U.S. tax code that are important to the people and businesses I am privileged to represent in rural Missouri. Without Congressional action, these tax cuts will expire on December 31st.

For Missouri families, H.R. 4213 would provide important tax relief. The measure would extend deductions for state and local sales and property taxes and for college tuition. It would extend a special deduction for teachers and other school professionals who use personal funds to buy school supplies for their classrooms. And, the legislation would take steps to ensure activated military reservists do not suffer a pay reduction by providing a tax credit for small businesses that continue to pay National Guard and Reserve employees when they are called to active duty.

For Missouri farmers, H.R. 4213 would extend the five-year depreciation for farming machinery and equipment, would extend the charitable tax deduction for donated food, and would extend the tax deduction for donating conservation easements. H.R. 4213 would also extend critical tax incentives for biodiesel and renewable diesel fuel. The biodiesel tax credit is very important to the development and sustainability of America's renewable fuel industry and is particularly beneficial to biodiesel facilities, like Prairie Pride, located in Missouri's Fourth Congressional District.

For Missouri businesses, H.R. 4213 would extend the research and development (R&D) tax credit that encourages financial investment and job creation in America's high tech sector. The legislation would also strengthen the ability of American companies to serve customers overseas, would extend benefits for investments in economically distressed areas of our country, and would extend the 15-year cost recovery for qualified improvements to restaurants and retail space. H.R. 4213 would also extend a low-income housing tax credit exchange program that has invested more than $3.7 billion in the construction of over 49,000 low-income housing units.

H.R. 4213 would extend other valuable provisions of the U.S. tax code, including deductions for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses. And, to ensure the legislation does not add to the deficit, the $31 billion cost of this legislation is offset by cracking down on tax evaders who hide their assets in offshore tax havens and ending special tax treatment for hedge fund and investment bank managers.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4213 so that we can provide tax relief and economic certainty to families and businesses in 2010.

Madam Speaker, on Friday December 4, 2009, I had an opportunity to address the American Security Project Conference regarding the situation in Afghanistan. This speech followed a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, which I chair, the day before. My address is as follows:

[Speech given at the American Security Project Conference, Dec. 4,

2009]

Beyond the Surge: Assessing the President's Afghanistan Strategy

(By Ike Skelton)

First, let me take a moment to thank Admiral Gunn for that

introduction. You're too kind. I'd like to extend that thanks

to Senator Hart and the American Security Project as a whole.

You're doing great work, and I appreciate your efforts. I'd

also like to say happy birthday to Evelyn Farkas, here at

ASP. I would also like to thank our brave men and women in

uniform. We have asked much of them in the past decade, and

they have not failed to deliver.

Two months ago, I wrote a letter to the President saying,

essentially, that he should listen to his commanders in the

field. Being a member of Congress, it took six pages to say

that, but that was the basic message. I made that same point

in private conversations with the President. And so it

pleased me the other night when the President agreed to

provide General McChrystal with additional forces needed to

make this new strategy work.

But before assessing the overall strategy, I think we

should take a moment to remind ourselves why we're in

Afghanistan and the threat we face there.

Al Qa'ida presents a serious threat to our nation. Osama

bin Laden and his minions have attacked us or attempted to

attack us many times over the years. The most remarkable

attack involved the murder of 3000 civilians--men, women, and

children--but it was hardly the only attack. And I do not

believe that anyone has a good reason to believe that they

have given up their attempts to attack us.

Following our invasion of Afghanistan in response to this

attack, al Qa'ida largely fled to the border regions of

Pakistan. Their Taliban allies, meanwhile, continue to

escalate their attacks in an attempt to overthrow the Afghan

government and drive out the international coalition.

Others have differing opinions on this, but I do not

believe that we can ultimately destroy al Qa'ida if we cannot

prevent them from recreating a safe haven in Afghanistan.

I also do not believe that we can be successful in rooting

them out of Pakistan if we fail in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Pakistan have some inherent advantages for

al Qa'ida that other places may not. Having been in the

region for over 20 years, they have married into local tribes

and made contacts with other extremist organizations. These

connections have allowed the senior leaders to hide

successfully for many years.

Afghanistan is also of strategic value to al Qa'ida. In

losing Afghanistan, they lost not only the support of a

government and the use of an entire country as a safe haven,

but suffered a tremendous blow to their image. Reestablishing

a safe haven in Afghanistan could rehabilitate this image

among those who resent or oppose the United States, leading

to increases in recruiting and funding.

Nor can we consider Afghanistan and Pakistan in isolation--

the security situation in Afghanistan can have a negative

impact on the stability of Pakistan. It is foolish to think

that if the Taliban and al Qa'ida were able to reestablish

themselves in all or part of Afghanistan, they would not lend

support to those militants seeking to overthrow or

destabilize the Pakistani state. Al Qa'ida has already

assisted the Pakistani Taliban in carrying out attacks on the

Pakistani government, and I would expect this aid to increase

if al Qa'ida regained a base in Afghanistan. There was an

attack at a mosque earlier today that killed dozens. With a

secure base for al Qa'ida, I would expect many more such

attacks. And the only thing worse than al Qa'ida loose in

Afghanistan again is a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.

On Tuesday night, the President proposed what I think is a

good way ahead as we address this threat. From the extensive

media reporting on the process, we all know how thorough a

review was conducted by the White House, lasting months and

including somewhere around 10 cabinet secretary level

meetings and extensive consultation with every expert they

could find.

President Obama's strategy rightly focuses on seizing the

initiative from the enemy, building Afghan capacity, and

ultimately allowing the Afghan government and security forces

to take the lead in fighting this war.

The President has appropriately called for additional troops from our allies--this is not just America's war, and we must not allow it to become that. Perhaps more importantly, the President has put the burden of reform squarely on the Afghan government, laying out clear expectations of performance and promising support for those ministries and local leaders that perform.

The President has also rightly acknowledged the importance

of Pakistan. Pakistan remains a challenge, playing a key and

often contradictory role in the region. Pakistan, by

assisting in the pursuit of al Qa'ida and Afghan Taliban

leaders, could help bring the war in Afghanistan to an end.

Conversely, if Pakistan were to return to old habits of

supporting the Afghan Taliban, the war may be almost

impossible to win. More concerning, the continued ascendency

of militant movements in the region could destabilize

Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons. This could be

disastrous for all of us.

I think this is a good strategy. Perhaps most importantly,

it is a strategy that I believe has a good chance of success.

In the past, I have often said that we lacked a strategy for

the first 7 years of the war in Afghanistan. Some of my

colleagues have suggested that this assertion may not be

entirely fair. But, the result of whatever the prior

Administration thought it was doing, ultimately resembled

conducting combat operations without any thought of what we

were trying to accomplish. So having a strategy, much less a

good one, is a great start.

President Obama also, I am pleased to say, took my advice.

He listened to his military leaders, including Generals

McChrystal and Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, and Secretary Gates.

Ultimately, the President endorsed adding 30,000 troops to

carry out his strategy. This is on top of the 21,000 he

dispatched to Afghanistan earlier this year. In January 2009,

there were about 33,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In about

7 months, there will be three times that. That is, I believe,

a clear sign of the President's resolve and willingness to do

what it takes to be successful in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee, which I have

to honor to chair, hosted Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen,

and Deputy Secretary of State Lew. Next Tuesday, we will hear

from General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. Members,

properly, have a lot of questions about the strategy, and we

want to make sure that the details have been thought through.

I'll list a few of the areas we have explored or will next

week.

Many members are concerned about the July 2011 date to

begin redeployment. So far, most have focused on that date as

being set, rather than completely conditions based, but to me

it looks like this is a case where there isn't much to

complain about. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen were

pretty clear that not only were they comfortable with the

date, but that they thought it served the useful purpose of

motivating the Afghans.

To me, what happens after that date is at least as

important as the date itself. Secretary Gates testified that

the process of transition that begins on that date would

itself be slow and conditions-based, so that while the start

of the process was fixed in time, the end could be adjusted

as required. And I think that flexibility and realistic

approach to a difficult process is exactly right.

One other concern, and one that in my mind might be more

realistic, is the unintended consequences of setting out such

a message. The message of a gradual, conditions-based

transition may not be understood the same way by all

audiences. The Pakistanis may well believe that it signals

that the United States is once again leaving the region, and

that might undermine our hopes of gaining their cooperation.

Various ethnic groups in Afghanistan, fearing a civil war

after we begin to depart, could start stockpiling weaponry or

hedge their bets in other unhelpful ways. I think we have to

keep our eyes open for this possibility and be creative in

reassuring the Afghans and the Pakistanis that we are not

abandoning them.

Corruption in the Afghan government, and the legitimacy or

illegitimacy of that government, is also frequently a subject

of questioning. It's a concern I share, and one that

President Karzai's recent election reinforced. On the

positive side, there are ministers and ministries in

Afghanistan that have functioned well--Minister Wardak at the

Defense Ministry and Minister Atmar at the Interior Ministry

are honest effective ministers. The Health Ministry,

Education Ministry, and the National Solidarity Program, run

by the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, all

seem to be functioning well.

But there are also legitimate concerns. High level

corruption among ministers and governors; shakedowns by

police, judges, and other authorities; and perceptions that

warlords are untouchable by the law feed the belief among the

Afghan people that their government does not serve them. And

President Karzai has not always been helpful--his family is

perceived to be part of the problem, and his unwillingness to

remove the immunity from some ministers so the Afghan

Attorney General can indict them is not helpful.

There are ways we can help push for reform--for example,

not working with those leaders who prove to be corrupt so

that their ability to deliver for their followers or to make

money is hampered--but we have to take this seriously.

President Karzai, in his inauguration speech also promised to

crack down on corruption and to hold a loya jirga of national

reconciliation. I would like to hear from General McChrystal

and Ambassador Eikenberry how we can hold him to these

promises and push to have the jirga also help develop a

compact of what the Afghan people have a right to expect from

their government.

Members will also likely ask about the promised assessment

of efforts in December 2010. I think that is a good time to

begin such an assessment--six months after all the promised

troops arrive in country--but members will likely have many

questions about it. What will we assess? What is an

acceptable level of progress? What are the options if

progress is insufficient? These are all obvious questions.

The one thing I would say is that I think it will behoove all

of us to offer the Administration some breathing space before

we make judgments about the success of the plan. Asking

questions is fair, drawing conclusions about the success or

failure of the strategy before it is really implemented

probably isn't.

So, in the first few days after the announcement of the new

strategy, those are some of my thoughts. I think the

President is to be commended for the strategy and the resolve

he is showing. I believe he is fully aware of the threat

posed by al Qa'ida and the potential posed by a sanctuary for

terror in Afghanistan and a possibly destabilized Pakistan.

These are serious threats we are facing, and the President is

clearly prepared to take realistic, effective and fully

resourced steps to address them.

So I conclude as I started, by thanking all of you for what

you do, and by asking you to think of the brave men and women

in uniform, and the civilians who will assist them, who will

have to do the hard, dangerous work to make this strategy a

success. We owe them a great deal, and we should never forget

it.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, nearly all American families do not qualify for the Federal estate tax. In fact, under the law as currently written in 2009, 99.75 percent of estates are exempt.

The Federal estate tax has been amended many times through the years--most recently in 2001 as part of the Republicans' omnibus tax cut legislation. That measure gradually increased estate tax exemptions and lowered estate tax rates between 2001 and 2009.

In 2002, people with estates valued less than $1 million ($2 million for joint filers) after deductions for expenses, debts, and bequests to a surviving spouse or charity were exempt from paying the Federal estate tax. Those with estates above that value were taxed at a rate of 55 percent.

In 2009, people with estates valued less than $3.5 million ($7 million for joint filers) after deductions for expenses, debts, and bequests to a surviving spouse or charity are exempt from paying the Federal estate tax. Those with estates above that value are taxed at a rate of 45 percent.

The 2001 tax law phases out the federal estate tax in 2010 but then reinstates the tax in 2011 at the level it was in 2002--$1 million for single filers and $2 million for those filing a joint return. This fluctuation in estate tax rates has caused a great deal of confusion for business owners and farmers who are participating in estate planning. In order to provide more certainty to those individuals, the Congress has been working to set a permanent estate tax rate that would exempt nearly all but the very wealthiest Americans.

Through the years, I have voted to eliminate the estate tax or to maintain suitably high exemptions to better shield farmers and small business owners from the burdens of the tax. This year, I cosponsored H.R. 3905, bipartisan legislation written by Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV) that would permanently exempt estates valued at less than $5 million for single filers and $10 million for joint filers and set the tax rate on estates valued above that amount at 45 percent on a decreasing scale to 35 percent over the next ten years.

I have also cosponsored H.R. 3524, the Family Farm Preservation and Conservation Estate Tax Act, which was introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson. This legislation would add a provision to the federal tax code allowing farmers and ranchers to defer payment of the Federal estate tax as long as the land is owned within the family and remains in agricultural production. H.R. 3524 would also defer the tax for land placed into a conservation easement. The measure would represent a win for farmers, for conservation and hunters, and for all of rural America. That is why it is supported by groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Pork Producers Council, the Dairy Farmers of America, and the Agricultural Retailers Association.

While I would have preferred the House of Representatives to consider one of these well-written bills, the House of Representatives has considered a different measure, H.R. 4154, the Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009, which would permanently extend the estate tax levels at the current, 2009 rates.

It is very important for families, farmers, and businesses to have greater certainty with respect to estate planning. Groups representing a good number of Missourians expressed to me their views on this issue. The Dairy Farmers of America, which represents nearly 18,000 dairy producers in America, urged Congress to ``take action now on this important measure'' and to ``support H.R. 4154.'' The American Farm Bureau Federation, while neutral on the bill, indicated the ``need for certainty in estate tax law and the importance of maintaining the stepped-up basis.'' And, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations, wrote that Congress should ``expeditiously approve a permanent estate tax solution to provide certainty for family-owned businesses and farms.'' The Chamber further indicated that ``H.R. 4154, the `Permanent Estate Tax Relief for Families, Farmers, and Small Businesses Act of 2009,' is a step towards this goal.''

As a rural Missouri Congressman, I understand that farms and small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the Federal estate tax. That is why I supported H.R. 4154. Under the 2009 estate tax guidelines, nearly all small businesses and farms are exempt from paying the tax. Only a small fraction of all estates in America-- 9,600--are expected to owe Federal estate taxes in 2009. For farmers, USDA data indicate that, after deductions, approximately 554 farm estates throughout our Nation would be considered taxable.

We should strive to reduce the number of farms and small businesses that are subject to the Federal estate tax. As I have mentioned, I have cosponsored legislation to do just that. And, to make clear my view that we should strive for higher tax exemptions, I was one of only 21 Democrats to vote with Republicans against the Rule to consider H.R. 4154 in the House of Representatives and was one of only 18 Democrats to vote with Republicans to send H.R. 4154 back to the Ways and Means Committee so that it could be improved.

At the end of the day, though, both of those procedural votes failed and we were left with two choices--either pass a bill to give farmers and small business owners more certainty or sit back and do nothing, which would allow the rates to become more painful to farmers and small business owners over the next 2 years. To me, that choice was easy. H.R. 4154 is a step in the right direction and I look forward to working with the Senate on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to acknowledge Warsaw, Missouri, and the efforts of the Parks and Recreation Department to turn this beautiful city into Missouri's most bike- friendly community. Already a destination city for Americans seeking to enjoy Missouri's two largest lakes, Warsaw is working to become a model city for healthy living.

Under the leadership of City Administrator Randy Pogue and Parks and Recreation Director Mac Vorce, Warsaw plans to build a network of 15 to 20 miles of trails that radiate from the city center like the spokes of a wheel. These trails will connect the major area attractions and allow the residents of Warsaw to travel by bicycle to school and work. By building this impressive network of trails, Warsaw is creating a culture of healthy living. Pogue and Vorce hope that these trails will inspire Missourians to get out of the house, put down the television remote, and enjoy the breath-taking beauty of the Fourth District of Missouri.

What began as a dream eight years ago is now close to becoming a reality due to the hard work of Pogue, Vorce, and their visionary team of engineers and staff members. After this House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February of this year, Warsaw applied for and received two grants to fund the renovation of Steamboat Landing and the surrounding area. This federal stimulus money, coupled with ``handshake funds'' from the Corps of Engineers, will allow Warsaw to finish this project and provide greater access to the beauty of this city.

Madam Speaker, Warsaw, which is situated in the heart of the Fourth District, is blessed with the God-given beauty of its natural surroundings. I trust that my fellow members of the House will join me in recognizing Warsaw as a model for healthy living and the promotion of the great outdoors.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to honor Major General John R. Alison, a distinguished Airman, a dedicated public servant, and a true American hero. Major General Alison served in the United States Air Force during World War II and the Korean War and also served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics under President Harry Truman. Known as the father of Air Force Special Operations, Major General Alison turned 97 on November 21, 2009.

As a boy growing up in central Florida, Major General Alison dreamed of becoming a pilot for the United States. He graduated from the University of Florida School of Engineering in 1936 and soon after joined the United States Army Air Corps. He earned his wings in 1937 at Kelly Field and went on to serve as the assistant Military Attache in England and the Soviet Union.

During World War II, Major General Alison served as commander of the 75th Fighter Squadron, formerly known as the ``Flying Tigers.'' With seven confirmed victories and numerous probable kills, he ended his tour as a combat ace and earned a Distinguished Service Cross and a Silver Star for his unmatched courage and skill. Major General Alison returned home in May of 1943 only to be recalled to co-command the highly innovative 1st Air Commando Group. This secret flying unit flew over 200 miles into enemy territory in support of some 9,000 Allied forces. For his skill and courage as a pilot, he was inducted into the Air Commando Hall of Fame in 1994.

After the war, President Harry Truman called on Major General Alison to serve as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics. In this role, he developed thoughtful recommendations on U.S. foreign policy relating to the Soviet Union, the Marshall Plan, and the European Recovery Program. These recommendations and other documents from his time as Assistant Secretary are held at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum.

Madam Speaker, Major General John R. Alison has spent his life fighting for our country as a pilot and a public servant. Never wavering in his commitment to freedom and the ideals of our country, he sets a high standard for all Americans. I am proud to call him my friend, and I trust that my fellow members of the House will join me in recognizing this courageous and talented American.

Mr. Speaker, November is National Epilepsy Awareness Month, and I rise today to help bring awareness to the month and to this year's theme, which is ``Talk About It.'' Epilepsy is a neurological condition that affects more than 3 million Americans and more than 50 million people worldwide. It affects people of all ages, nations, and races. A burst of electrical energy in the brain can cause an individual with epilepsy to experience a seizure. Seizures can be mild, but sadly, in some cases, they are fatal.

In 2008, Congress passed legislation to establish epilepsy centers of excellence within the Veterans Administration. A traumatic brain injury can put a servicemember at greater risk for developing epilepsy in later years. And these centers of excellence will help ensure our veterans receive top-of-the-line care.

Fortunately, research into epilepsy has resulted in the development of medications and other treatments that have proven successful in controlling epileptic seizures. However, these treatments are not effective for everyone with epilepsy, which means more work remains.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing National Epilepsy Awareness Month and to pay tribute to all those working to promote a greater understanding.

Madam Speaker, let me take this moment to recognize and honor MAJ Toby D. Patterson, United States Marine Corps, for his service to the U.S. House of Representatives as he prepares to depart Capitol Hill. After serving over 2\1/2\ years as a liaison officer and the Deputy Director of the United States Marine Corps Liaison Office in the U.S. House of Representatives, he will be attending the Australian Command and Staff College in Canberra, Australia.

While serving in the Liaison office, Major Patterson developed and executed a legislative strategy for the United States Marine Corps that was instrumental in training and equipping the Marine Corps and ensuring their success on the battlefield. By engaging members of Congress and their staffs, Major Patterson directly facilitated an increased emphasis on improving Congressional relationships, which is a cornerstone of the Corps' strategic vision.

During his time on Capitol Hill, Major Patterson successfully planned, coordinated and escorted over 50 international and domestic Congressional and Staff Delegations. His attention to detail and anticipation of requirements allowed my fellow members of the House to focus on fact-finding and gleaning new insights that informed critical decisions to support the people of the United States. Due to his professionalism, dedication and knowledge, Major Patterson became a highly sought after military escort for delegations traveling into Combat and Post Conflict Zones. The time he has spent supporting members of the House has been truly noteworthy.

Major Patterson has distinguished himself as a man of many talents. While working in a challenging environment, he earned a Master's degree from the University of Oklahoma, completed the Marine Corps Non- Resident Command and Staff College, and succeeded as an accomplished athlete having run two Marine Corps Marathons and completing a full Ironman Triathlon.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I have benefitted personally from Major Patterson's invaluable insights and hold great appreciation for the caliber of his work. He sets a high standard for others to emulate, and our Nation benefits from his outstanding dedication and leadership. I am certain that the members of the House will join me in wishing Major Patterson and his wife, Lindsey, continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. Chair, as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I study national security issues a great deal and fully understand the risks posed by terrorism.

Terrorists from home and abroad have killed innocent Americans, which is why we in Congress have an obligation to diminish the likelihood of these kinds of terrorist attacks by strengthening our military, by giving law enforcement additional tools, and by authorizing common sense homeland security regulations. But, in writing laws to protect the American people, we must carefully consider how new regulations might impact citizens and businesses.

In 2006, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to establish risk-based security performance standards for chemical facilities that use or store chemicals that can be attractive to terrorists. The Department issued its final chemical security regulations--the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards--in 2007, and, since then, businesses have been working in a collaborative manner with the Department to implement them.

For agriculture, the Department has acknowledged the unique nature of farming with respect to chemical regulations and has indefinitely exempted from regulation all end-users of chemicals used in agriculture, including farms, ranches, and other crop, feed, or livestock facilities.

In October 2009, the authority for the Department of Homeland Security to regulate chemical facilities expired. It was recently extended for one year through the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security appropriations bill. In an effort to more permanently extend the Department's authority to regulate chemical facilities and to expand federal regulations to drinking water and waste water facilities, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009.

To be sure, improving the security around these entities is an important national security objective, and the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee deserve a great deal of praise for gluing together H.R. 2868.

However, as a Congressman from rural Missouri, I examined H.R. 2868 through the lens of the farmers I represent. Some in the agricultural community do not support portions of this legislation relating to so- called Inherently Safer Technology requirements. They believe these new requirements could force makers of their fertilizers to change to more expensive or less effective products, eventually adding to producers' input costs.

I realize that the Committees of jurisdiction over H.R. 2868 worked hard to reach out to the agricultural community and that the bill was improved in Committee by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR) and Congressman Zach Space (D-OH) who added technical assistance grants for agricultural wholesalers. I also fully appreciate that the Department has exempted farms from its regulations for an indefinite period of time.

But, after careful consideration and review, it seems more work remains to assuage agriculture's concerns about the Inherently Safer Technology requirements. As H.R. 2868 was presented in the House, I could not lend my support to it based on the concerns of my farmers and Missouri's agricultural retailers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to personally thank and commend the 2,837 personnel--including Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Department of Defense civilians and contractors, and coalition liaisons from Canada, Poland, Jordan, and Australia--of the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

These dedicated folks do yeoman's work in providing world class comprehensive care to our warriors wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and to more than 52,000 American military personnel and their families in the Kaiserslautern Military Community. They also provide specialized care to nearly 245,000 American military personnel and their families throughout the European Theater.

I can personally attest to the phenomenal work done at Landstuhl. During a visit to Iraq over Thanksgiving 2005, Congressman Tim Murphy and I were injured in a motor vehicle accident. After receiving excellent care at the Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, we were moved by C-17 to Landstuhl. I spent several days in room 7 of the Intensive Care Unit there. It is not an understatement to say that the care I received was outstanding. I am sure any of our troops who have been treated there and their families would attest to the same.

Along with my committee's ranking member, Buck McKeon, I will soon be leading a congressional delegation to visit wounded

servicemembers and all who care for them at Landstuhl for Thanksgiving dinner. Given the spirit of that holiday, this statement--which I will frame to present to the personnel there--is a fitting tribute to the excellence they deliver every day.

Landstuhl averages over 1,000 total inpatients per month, with a daily average of 20 surgical cases, and 21 admissions and discharges per day. They also bring new life into the world, with an average of three live births per day. They provide specialized care in fields ranging from cardiology to infectious disease to neurology. If it is medically possible, the professionals at Landstuhl make it happen. Our servicemembers know that they and their families will be taken care of.

Perhaps most importantly, though, Landstuhl plays a critical role in caring for our warriors wounded in combat and bringing them back home. After initial treatment in theater, critical care air transport teams bring wounded servicemembers to Landstuhl for stabilization and treatment before being transported to Andrews Air Force Base. The folks at Landstuhl see the vast majority of our wounded and injured in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and they administer the best that modern medicine has to offer.

I also praise the nonmedical services offered at Landstuhl, including liaisons for finance and personnel issues, invitational travel orders for family members and transportation from the airport, issuance of basic civilian clothing and sundry items, and AAFES vouchers and personal shoppers, among other services. This comprehensive care provides the right environment to begin the healing process.

Here, I must also thank those who embody the giving spirit of our Nation. I speak, of course, of the selfless service of the American Red Cross volunteers, Fisher House volunteers and staff, and the members of the USO who make themselves available to our servicemembers and their families 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. No need is too big or too small and no problem too difficult for this group. Their perseverance, creativity, and unyielding commitment to helping others have humbled many a hardened warrior, and we are indeed fortunate to have their support.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to know that we have such an immensely capable group of people looking after the health and well-being of servicemembers and their families. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee and as a former patient, I pay great tribute to the excellence and sacrifice of all who serve at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. They all deserve our thanks and support.