Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the first month I was practicing law, I had a client that came into my office and he gave me a single sheet of paper. It said, ``Do everything we talked about. And remember, money is no object.'' I took that sheet and I went into the managing partner's office and I showed it to him. And he smiled and he said, Randy, the reason money is no object is because he doesn't have any money; he spends his father's money. And then he looked in his drawer and he pulled out a sheet of paper and it said this: ``I'm tired of his reckless spending. Be on notice, he is hereby cut off. Enough is enough.''

Mr. Speaker, if you don't read anything else in this bill, please read the section between the lines that says this, Money is no object. And the reason it's no object is because they're not spending their money. They're spending our senior citizens' money, our jobs' money, and the money of our grandchildren. And I believe the American people are sending them a single message: We're going to cut off their reckless spending. Enough is enough.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman J. Randy Forbes

Bill Number: H.R. 3183

Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Investigations

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers

Address of Requesting Entity: 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510

Description of Request: Provides $70,000 to conduct a feasibility study to address flooding concerns and environmental restoration. The

Dismal Swamp is maintained as a swamp by fixed weirs across the drainage ditches to restrict the flow of water out of the swamp and inward to Lake Drummond in the middle of the Dismal Swamp. The water exiting Lake Drummond through a feeder ditch is used to maintain the level of water in the Dismal Swamp Canal, a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. When Lake Drummond spilled from its banks due to heavy rains, it inundated areas of the city. The public perceives that the Corps may have prevented or minimized the flooding by diverting the floodwaters from Lake Drummond through the navigation locks at Deep Creek, Virginia, and at South Mills, North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, last week I received a call that every Member of Congress fears: a plant with 1,100 jobs in a town of 9,000 residents closed its doors. We want to be there for them, and we will be there for them as the symptoms of a bad economy entangle their lives. But Americans are asking you a larger question today. The question is, When will this government listen to the voice of wisdom, shouting for us to address the causes of a bad economy and not just the symptoms?

As one of 17 Members of Congress who voted against every one of your bailout stimulus bills, I watched you ignore that voice of wisdom as you saddled our grandchildren with a debt that they will wear for decades as a badge of dishonor for your deafness. I watched as you ignored it as you tried to impose your energy agenda, knowing it would stifle America's competitiveness and kill jobs. And I watched as you ignore it while you try to tax our existing jobs into oblivion.

Mr. Speaker, today Americans are asking a simple question: When will you listen?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both this rule and the underlying conference report. The American people need to understand the sea change that's taking place with this rule and this conference report. It's the first time we have allowed social policy and the budget to drive our defense posture instead of our defense posture driving the budget. We have men today that are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, and they have no plan.

Now, the law doesn't require that the administration have a plan. Common sense does. Fairness does. But what the law did require was on this report they have a shipbuilding plan so America knows what we're doing with their ships, how they're building, and that they certify that this budget, this authorization bill will meet. And this administration just refused to do it.

The law also requires that they have an aviation plan that just makes sense. But the law requires them to give us a plan to say what they're going to do with our planes and the certification that this conference report does it. They just refuse to do it.

When they sent the report over, they issued a gag order to members in the Pentagon where they couldn't even talk to Congress to tell them where they were putting dollars and which programs they were cutting, and that was just wrong. And then they have labeled their social agenda and overlaid it into a Defense authorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, and I hope we will defeat this rule and defeat the underlying conference report.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Robert Gould, who will retire from the United States Army on 1 February 2010.

America has long been called the land of opportunity, and the United States Army has served as the launching pad for many young men and women to reach the highest of heights. Rob Gould enlisted in the U.S. Army in April 1984 to commence a military career that would span nearly 26 years. As an enlisted man, Rob completed the requisite school and was awarded the military occupation skill of Chaparral Air Defense Missile Crewman. He served 42 months in the enlisted ranks and achieved the rank of Sergeant before being selected for the Army's officer commissioning program, Green to Gold.

Lieutenant Colonel Gould earned his commission as an Army officer through Army's ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. As a cadet, he was awarded the Chancellor's Trophy in recognition of his selection as Outstanding Cadet of the Year. Following commissioning, Lieutenant Colonel Gould entered flight school and finished second in his class.

As an aviator, Rob proudly served his country wherever duty called. He deployed in support of operations in Somalia, and during his company command, he moved his 122 man troop from Fort Bragg, NC to Fort Polk, LA and later deployed in support of Operation Joint Guard in Bosnia- Herzegovina.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Gould subsequently joined the Army's Acquisition Corps and earned an advanced degree at the Florida Institute of Technology. As a member of the Acquisition Corps, Lieutenant Colonel Gould completed assignments at the Army Logistics Management College and the Defense Contract Management Agency. He supported Operations Iraqi Freedom during two tours to Amman, Jordan and Baghdad, Iraq, where he served as the DCMA Officer in Charge for the International Zone.

Nearly twenty-six years of service to our country, ascension from the enlisted ranks to a field grade officer, and excellence in flying and buying for the Army demonstrate that this soldier has been, and always will be, Army Strong!

The lasting legacy Lieutenant Colonel Robert Gould has blazed over the years will be the impact on the men and women he served with and that of his family. This successful journey could not have been completed without the support of his loving wife, Cheryl, and his children, Jessica, Janna and Wesley. On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives, the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District of Virginia, and the citizens of a grateful Nation, congratulations on your well-deserved retirement, and thank you for your service to our country.

I have a motion at the desk, Mr. Speaker.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad day as we come before the House today to have to even bring this motion to instruct conferees. But essentially what the motion to instruct conferees does is to simply make sure, when we're dealing with something as important as the Defense authorization bill, that we're dealing with the Defense authorization bill--that we're not saddling it with the hate crimes legislation which, sadly, is what we are now doing.

Mr. Speaker, across America, people are becoming more and more disillusioned by the processes that they see taking place here in the House of Representatives and down the hall in the Senate. And this is a perfect example of what that process has come to be, when we take a hate crimes legislation that should stand on its own accord, that has nothing to do with the Defense authorization bill, but we marry them together and saddle them and bring them to the House floor with the take-it-or-leave-it approach.

Mr. Speaker, we need to watch what's happening from this administration and unfortunately from the leadership in both the House and the Senate to destroy any even pretense of transparency anymore in the country.

I watched this year as we saw a sea change where so many of the policies have now led us to a point where our budget is driving defense posture instead of defense posture driving the budget. For the first time in my lifetime that I know of, this administration came down and literally issued a gag order to individuals in the Pentagon where they couldn't even talk to Members of Congress to tell us where they were cutting programs, where they were spending money, and to give us the reports that we needed, or even testify. In fact, the Army had to even cancel a hearing that it had before the Armed Services Committee because of that gag order.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the law requires the administration to tell us a plan. How are you going to build ships? That just makes sense. Americans should know: How are you going to build ships? What's the plan? The law requires that they do it and certify that the budget meets that plan. They just refuse to do it because the law doesn't apply to them.

And then they came down with an aviation--they were supposed to give us an aviation plan. The law mandates

it. It's in the statute. Again, they have to tell us what are you doing with planes; how many are you building; what's your plan--and certify that that aviation plan is going to be met by that budget. Mr. Speaker, they just refused.

When the House Armed Services Committee came together and every Member unanimously passed a congressional inquiry mandating that the administration give us that information before this conference report came to the House today, that it was supposed to be here on September 15--they just refused to do it. And they look at every soldier across the country and say, The law applies to you, but it must not apply to us.

And then, Mr. Speaker, we come down today to the situation we're in where we just made a motion to go to conference. And as we made the motion, they are literally writing the bill now in legislative services at this very time, and we haven't even had some hearings--the Readiness Subcommittee never even had a hearing.

Mr. Speaker, what this motion to instruct simply does is this: It says you may not give us all of the information the law requires, you may not hold hearings that we need to get the facts straight, but for goodness sake, at least make sure that we do a Defense authorization bill. And if we're going to do hate crimes legislation, let's do it separately. This gives us a clean vote up or down on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia talked about the rule of law. It is the rule of law that we are concerned with today, the rule of law that this administration refuses to obey with regard to sending us the documents and the information the statute requires so that we could make an intelligent decision about this conference report.

He talks about issues. Regardless of where you stand on this legislation, you could talk about transportation, space exploration, health care reform or immigration reform. But they have no place in the Defense authorization bill.

I just want to point out to the Speaker and to those listening to the debate, at 5:36 tonight we made the motion to go into conference. The report is already being written. It is a take-it-or-leave-it report. This is the only shot anyone will have at changing this report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California, Congressman McKeon.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to scratch my head as I listen to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who argues that just because the leadership of the House and the leadership of the Senate have followed the process time and again that the end justifies the means and that we ought to do it all the time.

But I would point out to the gentleman that this is not all the time. This is not a credit card bill. This is the national defense of the United States of America. It is our very freedoms. And we need to understand that just because some of us have had to vote on bills where we had no opportunity to debate them, where we didn't have time to read them and where we didn't have time to amend them doesn't make it right. And in this particular case, it doesn't make it right because the reality is only two individuals, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of

Senate Armed Services Committee, had to agree to put this in. They might be good men. They might have done it for good reasons. It was wrong. This is the only way to stop it.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, the representative to the conference report, had we been able to have him meet earlier, Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. Speaker, we can pound on the desk all day long. We can say stuff about consistency, but the reality is the American people understand what is going on. They understand that it doesn't make sense, no matter whether they like it or don't like it, to have a hate crimes legislation attached to the National Defense Authorization bill. They understand that it doesn't make sense to put bills on the floor when people don't have an opportunity to read them before they vote on them.

They understand it doesn't make sense to not give time to amend bills. And, Mr. Speaker, they understand that when you go into a motion to go into conference at 5:36 and you have already begun writing the report and this is the only way to keep this bill clean for the defense of the country, that it makes sense that this motion to instruct would pass.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from Texas makes a good point when she references the fact that Americans understand a mother's love, and they also understand a few other things. First of all, they understand fairness. They understand it is not fair when only two individuals get to make a choice that impacts all of America as opposed to having a bill voted on on its own merits.

They also understand when there is always this disconnect between the rhetoric over here--what's the problem--and the solution or the fix over here, and the huge disconnect between the two. And they also understand, Mr. Speaker, just something that so often it just seems that there is a dearth of here, and that is common sense. Because if the speakers keep coming up and saying how overwhelmingly this bill has support and would pass, why don't they bring it in a separate bill? Why do they have to go through this subterfuge of the process of putting it on a bill that clearly isn't germane?

I would like to just respond to the question that was raised: What better vehicle? This legislation has never been under the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. It has always come under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and the reason is because the proper vehicle is a vehicle that goes through the Judiciary Committee and is a separate bill.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to what the distinguished gentleman from Missouri said a moment ago, who is my dear friend and I hope will be my dear friend after today as well. He mentioned that this bill has a protection for individuals who were addressing their religious beliefs, and he mentioned that the Brownback amendment had been part of this, as I understood his referencing. In point of fact, the Brownback amendment nor the Leahy addition to the Brownback amendment contained what this report language says, which is this, Mr. Speaker. It says that they will be protected unless the government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling government interest.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think most people across the country are going to trust that language to their religious protections, and I will just give you an example. The Constitution, which has no such limitations, also protects our right to freedom of religion, and yet 2 weeks ago we saw the government haul into Federal court for criminalization a principal who had worked in a school system 30 years and an athletic director for 40 years because of their great sin that they had a compelling government interest against, that they dared to ask a 15- second blessing over a meal.

And for that they went through an all-day hearing with the threat of 6 months in jail, a $5,000 fine, and losing retirement benefits for 30 to 40 years. So I would just suggest, Mr. Speaker, this language is not nearly as protective as the Brownback amendment or the additional modifications in the Senate. And again, the only shot we have to change it will be right here, because the report's being written, and when it comes back it's going to be a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I hope that we will offer this instruction to the conferees.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from New York is very conversant on this topic, as well he should be, because he sits on the Judiciary Committee, where this legislation normally comes, and I think that's where it properly should be. However, I would suggest two things. First of all, that the very rule of law that will be needed to enforce these provisions becomes meaningless when you look at the administration's refusal to comply with the law to even give the information needed to vote on this conference report, as they did by refusing to give the shipbuilding plan and the certification of the aviation plan and the certification.

And then to make the statement that the fact that someone improperly charges someone says nothing about the law misses the whole chilling effect that that has. When you have that possibility out there, many individuals are then very concerned about exercising their rights because they're concerned even if it's improperly, that the government will come in and do something that they're going to have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars and have that hanging over their head just to prove what they should never have had to prove.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, we heard the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey essentially say this: It's more important to look at the substance of the bill than to worry about the rules. And how many of us have been tempted to ask that same question throughout our lives--isn't it more important that I look at the end than I consider the means?

But, Mr. Speaker, I plead with us, be careful when you go there, because those rules are designed to protect the majority and to protect the minority. And when we start saying, The rules don't matter; the process doesn't matter; it's just the end game, we get to where we're moving to in this country.

I want to come back to what the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee from California, said. I didn't hear my good friend, the chairman of the committee, correct him--so I must assume it's correct--when he said that both of them agreed that this legislation should not be in the conference report.

If in fact that is true, Mr. Speaker, and I have no reason to doubt it, then why is it in here? We have to ask, Why place it in here?

Mr. Speaker, I come back because here's what we're going to hear. There's going to be people that come in here and they're going to recount over and over again all the great things that are in this bill and why can't we just do one thing that shouldn't be in the bill and one thing that's wrong.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back and I want to tell you a story about an individual that I knew 20, 30 years ago. He was a big, strapping guy. He was a football player. And I remember talking to him years before when I was in college. He had never told me the story.

One day he came up and he said that he had watched as he came into his house when he was a young boy over and over again and his father would come in and his father would end up slapping his mother in the face and sometimes hitting her. And he would sit there in awe at that process, watching it happen. And every time, as the father looked to the children, he'd then back off and he would say, Wait a minute. I'm sorry. That was a bad thing to do. But remember all the good things I've done. Remember, I went to work today and I earned money and I brought it in here and I put it on the table so that you could eat. I paid for your Christmas presents. I'm saving money for your college tuition. Remember the good things and overlook that bad thing.

And day after day and month after month he watched that, until all of sudden he became a senior in high school and he had picked up a lot of stature. One day, his father walked into the house and slapped his mother. And he stood up and the man turned around to him and said, Remember; remember all the good things that I've done. And he started recounting them.

And that young senior reached over and picked up his father and said, There aren't enough good things in the world to justify what you've done to my mother. And, Mr. Speaker, he looked at the door and he opened it and he said, You go out that door and don't ever come back again. And that's what his father ended up doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would say today, all across America, Americans are standing up and they're looking at us and they're tired of us walking in here and saying, Forget the bad things we're doing. Forget what we're doing to America. Remember the good things. Look at this; look at this; look at this.

And one day, I don't know when it's going to come, but they're going to stand up with the stature and look us in the eye and they're going to say, There aren't enough good things in the world to justify what you're doing to America and to my country. There's the door. You go out and don't come back.

Mr. Speaker, I only pray that that comes sooner rather than later so that we have a country that they remember.

This is wrong. I hope that we will pass this motion to instruct.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, when you travel around the country today, one of the things that we see is that a lot of people are divided over different issues. But one thing that they all seem to be in unison about is the need for our government to be accountable, the administration to be accountable to the House and to the Senate and for us to be accountable to the people that we represent.

Oftentimes, we spend hours on this floor debating just how we're going to bring about that accountability, and that's why it's so disappointing at the end of the day to realize it doesn't really matter what we put in the statutes because the administration is determined that they're just not going to comply with it.

This year, Madam Speaker, when we're looking at one of the largest budgets we have, the defense budget, the Secretary of Defense issued a gag order prohibiting hundreds of members of the Pentagon from doing what they do every year, and that is to just communicate with Members of Congress, to tell them where cuts were being made and where moneys were going to various programs. It's one thing if they want to stop them from talking to Members of Congress, but then when they failed to comply with the statutes that dictate that they send us information so that we can make those independent assessments, Madam Speaker, that's where it becomes even more frustrating.

The statute that's passed by this Congress, signed by the President, says that the Secretary of Defense, when he sends his budget over, has to give the Armed Services Committee a shipbuilding plan. It makes common sense. It makes good sense that we know how many ships we were going to build, how many ships we were going to have so we could compare them with other nations. And then he has to certify that the budget he sends over meets that plan.

He has to do the same thing with an aviation plan, required by law that he submits to us an aviation plan telling us which planes we are going to build, how many planes we're going to have, and a certification that the budget complies with that aviation plan.

This year he just refused to do it. When we asked him about it, he responded with no information at all. So the Armed Services Committee, on a bipartisan basis with every member of the Armed Services Committee agreeing, every Democrat, every Republican, passed a congressional inquiry mandating that the Secretary of Defense comply with the law and send us the shipbuilding plan and the aviation plan by September 15 so we would have those figures before the conference committee came back on the Defense authorization bill. And, Madam Speaker, to date he has refused to submit those plans to the Armed Services Committee.

So, Madam Speaker, the difficulty we have is this: How do you as the Secretary of Defense look at our men and women in uniform across the world who are defending this country and say to them, You need to comply with the law, you need to comply with the regulations that we send out of the Pentagon, but it does not apply to him and he continues to skirt the law?

Madam Speaker, the American people deserve better, and we're going to continue to fight until we get that information to hold the accountability that we think they need.

Mr. Speaker, across this country there are many people today who are worried, and they're concerned and are even fearful about a number of things, but two of those things consistently work their way to the top.

The first one is the enormous amount of debt that this country is incurring and this administration is imposing upon our children and our grandchildren and, secondly, the lack of transparency of where our dollars are going.

If you look at the millions of dollars that have gone to ACORN, no one in this administration can tell you where they went and account for them. We have got millions of dollars going to banks that no one can account for; billions of dollars in the stimulus package that no one can account for; billions of dollars in welfare benefits that no one can trace and account for. And we have czars popping up all over the place with no accountability.

So we look at these people across the country who are fearful and concerned, and sometimes we say why are they assembling themselves together and why are they using some of the language that they are using? But what are their options?

And let's look at just one agency, the Department of Defense. Many of us have been concerned that these huge expenditures are for the first time putting us in a position where our budget is driving our defense posture as opposed to our defense posture driving our budget.

This year when the Defense budget came to the Armed Services Committee, the Secretary of Defense was

required by this Congress, by law, to submit two things with that budget: first of all, a plan about the number of ships that we have, a shipbuilding plan, so that we could look at that plan and see how it matches up to threats that we have around the world. And the second thing was an aviation plan. It just makes sense that you have a plan and know how many planes you're building and where they're going to be so that we can see that we can defend this country. As the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee it is important, I felt, for us to know those risk factors.

The law says specifically in 10 U.S. Code, section 231 that the Secretary has to submit a shipbuilding plan and then certify that this budget will meet it. The law also says he has to submit an aviation plan and certify that this budget will meet it. This year he simply refused to do it.

And, Mr. Speaker, when we then said what are our options, we thought, first of all, let's just be polite. So we wrote a letter, I wrote it, as ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, asking him to submit those plans. Do you know what we got? This is what we got: absolutely nothing.

So then we decided let's work in a bipartisan manner to see if we could correct that. So the Armed Services Committee issued a congressional inquiry demanding that the Secretary of Defense comply with the law and simply give us the plan for shipbuilding and aviation and certify that this budget would meet it. And, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we got: nothing.

Every member of the Armed Services Committee unanimously agreed that that information should be submitted by September 15 and issued that in the congressional inquiry. And, to date, the Secretary of Defense has refused to turn over those dollars, those figures, that certification, and those plans.

Mr. Speaker, I just ask you this: How can the Secretary of Defense look at our men and women in uniform and say we expect you to follow the law, to follow the statutes that Congress has passed and the President has signed, but they apply to you and not me?

I don't know what options we have; but I know this, Mr. Speaker, that I'm going to continue to come on this floor day after day after day until the Secretary complies with the law and gives the Armed Services Committee what he's supposed to give us, a shipbuilding plan and an aviation plan and the certifications that our budget will meet those so that we are defending the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I voted to oppose H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, because I cannot support legislation that amounts to a government takeover of student loans, and at the expense of private industry. The same legislation does continue several efforts I have championed throughout my time as a Member of Congress, and it is regretful that these initiatives were not taken up separately to make it easier for students to get the financial aid they need to get a college degree.

I support increasing the amount of aid available to college students through Pell Grants awards and voted to do so twice in the 110th Congress (H.R. 4137 and H.R. 2669). This program is vital to ensuring the accessibility of higher education for all Americans and I'm pleased this bill continues this increase in Pell Grants.

In addition, I supported efforts to cut interest rates on federal student loans in half (H.R. 5) and to expand eligibility for parents to qualify for education loans for their children (H.R. 5715). I have also been a strong supporter of funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions, which received valuable support in this bill as well.

I was a proud supporter and original sponsor of legislation that would help bridge economic opportunity and the digital divide between minority institutions and their counterparts (H.R. 4137 in the 110th). I will continue to fight for these critical initiatives and others to improve access and quality in American education.

Pell Grants awards, HBCUs, community college funding, and pre-K programs are too important to include them in the same bill alongside reckless provisions that restrict the student loan market and place the fate of student access to financial aid under the care and supervision of the federal government.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Frank Batten Sr., who was 82 when he passed away on September 10, 2009.

America lost an icon with the death of Frank Batten Sr. Frank will be remembered for his successful business career, steadfast community involvement, and selfless charitable endeavors. Nationally, he will be remembered as the founder of Landmark Communications Inc., which employed more than 10,000 people at its peak.

Born in 1927, Frank grew up in Norfolk and seemed destined to enter the newspaper industry lending to the influence of his uncle, Samuel L. Slover, who helped raise Frank and owned the publication that would become the Norfolk Ledger-Dispatch. Frank graduated from Culver Military Academy in Indiana in 1945. After serving in the U.S. Merchant Marine, Frank graduated from the University of Virginia and earned a master's degree from Harvard University in 1952. Two years later, at the age of 27, Frank became the publisher of two newspapers, the Virginian-Pilot and the Norfolk Ledger-Dispatch.

Batten's Virginian-Pilot was the only major Virginia newspaper to courageously oppose Governor Almond's 1958 orders to close six Norfolk secondary schools rather than accept court-ordered integration, and its editorials against the plan earned its editor the 1960 Pulitzer Prize.

Frank's company grew with the acquisition of other newspapers and media outlets, and in 1967, Landmark Communications, Inc. was born. Landmark's founder is perhaps best known for the audacious proposal to create a 24-hour weather channel, known as The Weather Channel. A now familiar household name, the Channel is a trusted source that has been relied upon by millions of Americans for more than 20 years when planning family vacations and in times of severe weather.

Education was the cause Frank Batten was most passionate about. After sitting on the State Council of Higher Education and serving as a trustee of Norfolk Academy, Frank became Old Dominion College's first rector in 1962. He guided the school until it achieved university status, and donated $32 million to ODU in 2003. Frank also created the Access College Foundation in 1988, which is credited with sending 70,000 Hampton Roads high school students to college over 20 years. Frank also donated $100 million to create the University of Virginia's Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.

At home, Frank was the proud husband of Jane Parke Batten since 1957. They had three children--son Frank Jr., who followed his father's footsteps into the publishing business, and daughters Mary Elizabeth ``Betsy'' and Dorothy.

Frank's love for people and community will not soon be forgotten or easily replaced, and his contributions to our lives in Virginia will live on for generations.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of this week in the United States District Court of Northern Virginia, in Florida, Pensacola Division, a principal who served his school district for 30 years and an athletic director who served them for 40 years in a little school district in Santa Rosa County will be carried to a hearing in Federal court.

So why did over 60 Members of Congress today sign the letter standing with that principal and that athletic director and against this Federal judge? Why is it different than so many other cases? Why is it special? Because, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the first times we have literally had the potential for the criminalization of prayer in the United States of America.

What was the big crime that this principal and athletic director did? What was the great offense? This school principal, with 30 years of service, asked the athletic director of the school, who had 40 years of service, to offer a blessing before a meal that was being held for private donors to the school's athletic program.

The Federal judge for this court has set a date for this Thursday, suggesting that they could be punished with a $5,000 fine, 6 months in prison, and the revocation of their retirement benefits. Why? Because one of them prayed. Why? Because one of them asked for the prayer. In fact, under the order issued by this judge in this court, this principal would not have been able to ask the President of the United States to speak at the school if the President concluded his speech, as he often does, with the phrase ``God bless America.''

If this action is allowed to stand, make no mistake, there will come a day when the Speaker of this House will be hauled into Federal court and threatened with jail because she dares to stand at that podium where you stand tonight and ask our chaplain to start our day with the prayer.

If this case stands, there will come a day when that chaplain is carried to court and threatened with jail because he offers that prayer he is asked to offer.

How far we've come from the day when 56 of the greatest Americans ever birthed pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defend a set of rights that ultimately gave us the right to stand on this floor tonight, a set of rights that have guided this Nation through darkness and through the light. But most of all, a set of rights given to us by the very Creator, the mention of whom by this principal or this athletic director could now lead them to a jail term.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we need to ask how far we have come. And if we do, the answer is clear: Too far. It is time for Americans to simply say enough is enough.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Richard S. Bray, who has received the distinct honor of being named Chesapeake's First Citizen for 2009.

Judge Bray has tirelessly championed a myriad of charitable causes in Chesapeake, throughout Hampton Roads, and all of Virginia. His exemplary service to his community has contributed greatly to the lives of those living and working in Chesapeake.

Born and raised in Portsmouth, Virginia, Judge Bray is a 1964 graduate of Woodrow Wilson High School, a 1968 graduate of Randolph- Macon College, and a 1971 graduate of the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary. After serving as a law clerk to Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawrence W. I'Anson, Judge Bray founded his own law firm in 1975, which became Bray and Whitehurst. Judge Bray practiced law in Chesapeake until 1989. He was then selected by the General Assembly as a judge of the Court of Virginia's Third Judicial Circuit, where he served with distinction for two years before being elected as a Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. Judge Bray's exemplary judicial service to the Court of Appeals lasted over a decade until his retirement in 2002.

Since 2002, Judge Bray has served as the President and CEO of the Beazley Foundation, Inc. The Beazley Foundation is a philanthropic beacon that champions educational, charitable, and religious causes in the Hampton Roads area and beyond. In 2008 alone, the Beazley Foundation provided $3.7 million in grants for scholarships and other charitable community services. Through the Foundation, Judge Bray has touched the lives of countless Virginians, such as the thousands who have received health care through the Chesapeake Care Free Clinic, which offers health care services to those who cannot afford care on their own.

In addition to his leadership on the Beazley Foundation, Judge Bray also presently serves as a Director of Towne Bank, the Chesapeake Alliance, and the Virginia State Fair. He has also served on the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, as Director of the People's Bank of Chesapeake, and as the founding Chairman of the Board of Directors for Greenbriar Country Club.

Judge Bray embodies the noble ideals of volunteerism, community spirit, and local investment. His efforts have done much to improve Chesapeake and the lives of the people within it. Please join me in heartfelt congratulations to Judge Bray for the well-deserved honor of being named Chesapeake's First Citizen.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Helen Daughtrey, who was 80 years old when she passed away on Saturday, August 15, 2009. America lost a community icon, public servant, and devoted daughter, wife, sister, and mother with the death of Helen Daughtrey. Helen will be remembered for her strong voice for fairness, civic duty, equality, and justice.

A long-time resident of Suffolk, Virginia, Helen was active in a myriad of service groups that improved the lives of those in the community. She served as the NAACP's Vice President for the Suffolk Branch. Helen was also a member of the American Red Cross, the Suffolk Beautification Committee, the Order of the Eastern Star of Virginia, the International Black Women's Congress, and Chesapeake Silver Strands Senior Citizens Club.

Helen was perhaps best known for her leadership and tireless efforts to see through the community improvement projects at The Fairgrounds and the East Washington Street corridor. Helen also tirelessly championed the conversion of the 1921 Phoenix Bank, Suffolk's first African-American bank into a black history museum.

As a lifelong member of Metropolitan Baptist Church, Helen was a dutiful woman of faith. Her commitment to her community of faith was evident in her service on the Deaconess Board, and as a member of the Mass and Chapel choirs and the Harvesters' Missionary Circle. She also taught a Sunday school class and was the founder of the Afro-Centric Ministry.

Helen was a 1946 graduate of Booker T. Washington High School and remained involved in the alumni chapter. Helen was the proud wife of James Otis ``Buck'' Daughtrey. They had four daughters--Brenda, Rhonda, Sharon, and Ida. Helen deeply touched each one of her many friends in the community, and I am proud to count myself among them.

Helen Daughtrey was the personification of determination, volunteerism, and persistence. Her deep faith drove her efforts to improve her city and the lives of the people within it. Helen's contributions to the citizens of Suffolk will not be forgotten or easily replaced, and her work will live on for generations. I can say with certainty, that at another ceremony in Helen's honor that we cannot see with our eyes, Helen is hearing the words: ``Well done, my good and faithful servant.''

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman J. Randy Forbes

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Research and Development, Defense Wide, Joint Experimentation

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Deputy Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness

Address of Requesting Entity: Patrick Henry Building, 1111 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23218

Description of Request: Provides $2,900,000 to enhance the Commonwealth of Virginia's interdiction, response and recovery capabilities to a WMD event through the conduct of a multiple agency, maritime full scale exercise.

Requesting Member: Congressman J. Randy Forbes

Bill Number: H.R. 3326

Account: Research and Development, Defense Wide, Defense Technology Analysis

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Old Dominion Research Foundation

Address of Requesting Entity: 4111 Monarch Way, Suite 204, Norfolk,

Mr. Speaker, last night I made thousands of phone calls across my district in a tele-town hall meeting, and I listened to my constituents, and two phrases emerged. The first one was ``fear.'' They're afraid of the recklessness that would allow us to begin a massive new program the experts agree will not reduce health care costs and will devastate the economy before we fix Medicare, which they know will be bankrupt in just 8 years.

They're afraid of the arrogance that leads some to conclude that a government committee or bureaucrat will make a better decision about an individual's health care than that individual can make with their doctor.

And they're also afraid of the short-sightedness of creating a plan that will result in rationing health care to seniors and creating longer lines and waits for the procedures they need.

But they're also grateful. They're grateful for those of us who will listen to them to bring some common sense and balance to the health care debate by stopping this race to a government takeover of their health care system and that will work instead for a system that finally puts our patients first.