Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the news industry faces a new threat to its job force--the Obama administration.

A senior producer at CNN announced last week that she will take a press secretary position in the Obama administration. She joins at least nine other reporters from such news outlets as The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, CBS, ABC News and CNN who have left their jobs to join the administration.

It will be an easy transition for these former journalists since their primary job responsibility, supporting the Obama administration, remains essentially the same.

The bad news for Americans is that the line between objective journalism and partisan politics continues to be blurred. If the media wants to restore their credibility, they should act as objective observers, not seek jobs in the Obama administration.

Madam Speaker, today I want to congratulate Mayor Jack Leonhardt on the occasion of his retirement as Mayor of the City of Windcrest.

First elected Mayor of Windcrest on May 5, 2001, Mayor Leonhardt has been consecutively elected to four terms. He announced his retirement in May 2009. As Mayor, he served as Chairman of the Alamo Area Council of Governments, President of the Texas Municipal League Region 7, Treasurer of the Greater Bexar Council Council of Cities and was appointed by Mayor Phil Hardberger and Judge Nelson Wolff to the Transportation Task Force.

Mayor Leonhardt is a member of the Windcrest Lions Club, the Windcrest Optimist Club, the Northeast Partnership, the Greater Randolph Chamber of Commerce, and serves as an elder at John Calvin Presbyterian Church. He also served in the United States Air Force from 1966 until 1987 when he retired as Lieutenant Colonel.

He is married to Barbara and has two daughters, Jacqueline Denham and Joanne Brickson, as well as four grandchildren.

He has done an exceptional job as Mayor and we are all grateful for his service to his community.

Madam Speaker, the director of ``A Christmas Story,'' Bob Clark, was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver in Los Angeles. An illegal gang member shot three students in Newark, New Jersey, execution style. He was free on bail and was facing charges of aggravated assault and sexual abuse of a child at the time of the murders. Another illegal immigrant was arrested after DNA matched him to a series of rapes of teenage girls in Chandler, Arizona.

Sadly, I could go on and on, remembering thousands of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. They are a reminder that we need to enforce all of our immigration laws to prevent these crimes from happening.

This means enforcing our work site laws against employers and illegal workers, supporting local law enforcement agencies who want to arrest illegal immigrants, and passing a long-term reauthorization of E- Verify, the Federal Government's program that helps employers hire legal workers.

Mr. Speaker, with a newly elected Democratic President, and a Senator recently switching to become a Democrat, the national media have tried to imply that Americans have moved away from the Republican Party's values and priorities.

But the facts tell a different story. A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows Americans are, in fact, taking a conservative turn on issues like abortion and second amendment rights. The number of people who support legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest point ever, and the number of people who say it is important to protect gun owners' rights increased to its highest point ever.

These numbers indicate a shift toward, not away from, some of the core principles of the Republican Party. But you won't see much in the media about Pew's survey. It doesn't support their liberal leanings.

Madam Speaker, in their stories assessing President Obama's first 100 days in office, the national media have been quick to tout the President's supposedly high approval rating.

But the facts are otherwise.

A Rasmussen poll released yesterday showed the President's approval rating at 55 percent and his disapproval rating at 43 percent.

Fewer than half of voters say the President is doing a good job handling the economy.

And only a third of voters think the President is governing on a bi- partisan basis.

These are hardly impressive figures.

The fact is that many Americans are not happy with the direction of the country under President Obama.

The national media should take a break from patting the President on the back and report the facts objectively.

Mr. Speaker, when Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano was nominated to be Homeland Security Secretary, her record showed that she often opposed enforcing immigration laws. So it's not entirely a surprise that she recently told CNN's John King that illegally ``crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.''

That's just plain wrong.

It is a violation of the criminal code to enter our country illegally. The law has been in effect for decades, and it has been codified in its current form since 1991.

The Obama administration apparently doesn't intend to enforce some of our immigration laws. There are numerous examples, such as delays in implementing a requirement that Federal contractors use E-Verify to ensure that illegal immigrants don't get Federal jobs.

It's hard to believe that this administration is not only weak when it comes to enforcing immigration laws, but also ignorant of immigration laws themselves.

Madam Speaker, today I want to congratulate the 2009 Service Academy nominees from the 21st Congressional District who have accepted academy appointments:

John Boone Shandera Baker, Salisbury School, Naval Academy;

Jordan Bernard Brickman, Clarke High School, Naval Academy;

Thomas Logan Chilton, Westwood High School, Naval Academy;

John Michel Paquette, Texas A&M University, Naval Academy;

Steven Charles Scott, Texas Military Institute, Naval Academy;

Nicholas Edward Espinoza, MacArthur High School, Air Force Academy;

Brent Tucker Hancock, Leander High School, Air Force Academy;

Cameron Neil Harris, International School of the Americas, Air Force Academy;

Benjamin John Matthewson, Northwestern Preparatory School, Air Force Academy;

William Thomas Stover, Central Catholic High School, Air Force Academy;

Thomas J. Wilkinson, Cedar Park High School, Air Force Academy;

Preston Joseph Horejsi, Medina High School, Military Academy;

Thomas Prioleau Ball, IV, Alamo Heights High School, Merchant Marine Academy.

Madam Speaker, recently, tens of thousands of Americans expressed their opposition to out-of-control government spending by participating in hundreds of TEA party protests around the country on Tax Day.

The national media responded by ignoring, dismissing, or blatantly ridiculing the protests.

There was no mention of the TEA parties the next day on the front pages of the Washington Post or New York Times, even though the Times found space on its front page for a story about protests in Afghanistan.

In contrast, the media covered liberal protests during President Bush's term frequently--and without criticism.

A Washington Times editorial argued that the media's handling of the TEA party protests went a step beyond bias. ``Forget media bias,'' the Times wrote. ``The liberal press judges stories before investigating them. That's prejudice.''

Whether it's due to bias or prejudice, the national media failed to cover Americans' widespread resistance to big government. And that's the real story.

Madam Speaker, network news programs gave President Obama over three times more coverage than President Bush at the same time in their presidencies, according to a new study by George Mason and Chapman Universities. During President Obama's first 50 days in office, the three network evening news programs devoted over 1,000 stories lasting almost 28 hours to President Obama--about half of their entire newscasts. By contrast, President Bush received less than 8 hours of network news coverage at the same point in his Presidency, less than one-third as much. There is no reason to think the first 100 days are any different.

Furthermore, 58 percent of all network news evaluations of President Obama and his policies were favorable while only 33 percent of evaluations of President Bush were favorable. These numbers aren't even close.

Americans need the media to report the news objectively; not act as a shill for a Democratic President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge, just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex and often speculative.

Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. Every violent crime can be devastating, not only to the victim and their family, but also to the larger community whose sense of safety has been violated. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted.

Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this bill is that it divides America. It divides America by race, again, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other status. We should focus on the opposite, uniting America, not dividing our country.

The bill also could have a chilling effect on the words of religious leaders or members of religious groups. For example, religious individuals who feel strongly about some values may hesitate to discuss their personal beliefs about homosexuality or gay marriage for fear of criminal investigation.

Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill.

In addition, the bill itself is probably unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts. There is little evidence to support the claim that hate crimes impact interstate or foreign commerce, an important consideration for any Federal court reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation.

In 2000, the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison struck down a prohibition on gender-motivated violence. In that case the court specifically warned Congress that the commerce clause does not extend to ``noneconomic, violent criminal conduct'' that does not cross State lines.

Nor is the proposed legislation authorized under the 14th and 15th Amendments. Those amendments extend only to State action and do not cover the actions of private persons who commit violent crimes.

While the 13th Amendment reaches private action such as individual criminal conduct, it is difficult to argue that one's religion or national origin constitutes a ``badge'' or ``incident'' of slavery, the subject of the 13th Amendment.

Also this bill purports to federalize crimes that are being successfully prosecuted by our States and local governments. Furthermore, FBI statistics show that the incidence of so-called hate crimes has actually declined and substantially declined over the last 10 years. In 2007, for example, of the approximately 17,000 homicides that occurred in the U.S., only nine of the 17,000 murders were determined to be motivated by bias.

This legislation blurs the lines between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not. If we go down this road, where does it end? With speech monitors and thought police?

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and now the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the vice ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), a member of the Judiciary Committee and a former ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a former judge and now the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the deputy ranking member of the Court Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), former judge, and now the ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and who is also deputy ranking member of the Administrative Law Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who is also the chairman of the Values Action Team.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, under this legislation, criminals who kill certain people will be punished more harshly than people who kill a police officer, a member of the military, a child, or a senior citizen.

Is a murder motivated by hatred for something other than the victim's membership in a particular group any less devastating or tragic? All crime victims should have equal worth in the eyes of the law. Ordinarily, criminal law does not concern itself with motive, why a person acted, but rather with intent, whether the perpetrator intended or knew that they would cause harm. If someone intends to harm a person, no motive makes them more or less culpable for their conduct.

This legislation will force law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence about the offender's thoughts and words regardless of the criminality of their actions.

When the government starts to punish thoughts, this is a dangerous road to travel. And where does it end? With thought police?

Mr. Speaker, we cannot legislate away hate, nor should we criminalize a person's thoughts, no matter how much we might disagree with them. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the

gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who is also chairman of the Republican Conference.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter from four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who are opposed to H.R. 1913:

United States Commission

on Civil Rights,

Washington, DC, April 29, 2009.

Re: H.R. 1913

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. James E. Clyburn,

Majority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Eric Cantor,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, Clyburn and

Hoyer: We write today to urge you to vote against the

proposed Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act

(H.R. 1913) (``LLEHCPA''). Although time does not permit this

issue to be presented for formal Commission action, we

believe it is important for us to write as individual members

to communicate our serious concerns with this legislation.

We believe that LLEHCPA will do little good and a great

deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow

federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of

defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries--

as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a

decade ago. Due to the exception for prosecutions by ``dual

sovereigns,'' such double prosecutions are technically not

violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S.

Constitution. But they are very much a violation of the

spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who

never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be

expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of

crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard

the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil

liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on

that process than with a bill that purports to protect

civil rights.

While the title of LLEHCPA suggests that it will apply only

to ``hate crimes,'' the actual criminal prohibitions

contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired

by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient

if he acts ``because of someone's actual or perceived race,

color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,

gender identity or disability. Consider:

Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their

victims. They are virtually always chosen ``because of their

gender.

A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled

because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves.

Literally, they are chosen ``because of their gender or

disability.

While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not

his intention to cover all rape with LLEHCPA, some DOJ

officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover,

both the objective meaning of the language and considerable

legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If

all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level

of a ``hate crime'' in the minds of ordinary Americans are

covered by LLEHCPA, then prosecutors will have ``two bites at

the apple'' for a very large number of crimes.

DOJ officials have argued that LLEHCPA is needed because

state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain

convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade

ago involving an attack on a black man by three white

hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried

separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however,

they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions

made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of

all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an

end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair

trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate

trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women

are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this

rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And

surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why

interfere with their judgment?

We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of LLEHCPA

and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if

you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us

with your questions or comments. The Chairman's Counsel and

Special Assistant, Dominique Ludvigson, is also available to

further direct your inquiries at [email protected] or at

(202) 376-7626.

Sincerely,

Gerald A. Reynolds,

Chairman.

Gail L. Heriot,

Commissioner.

Todd Gaziano,

Commissioner.

Peter N. Kirsanow,

Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1256 directs the Secretary of HHS to promulgate an interim final rule that is identical to the FDA's 1996 rule, which legal experts from across the political spectrum have stated would violate the First Amendment.

While these experts' views should carry great weight, even more persuasive is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court also has weighed in on various provisions of the rule, finding them unconstitutional.

In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that was similar in many ways to the FDA's proposed rule. The statute banned outdoor ads within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds and also restricted point-of-sale advertising for tobacco products.

The Court held that this regulation ran afoul of the test established in the Central Hudson case, which defines the protection afforded commercial speech under the First Amendment, as it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored, and would have disparate impacts from community to community.

The Court then noted that since the Massachusetts statute was based on the FDA's rule, the FDA rule would have similar constitutional problems.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the Court, ``the uniformly broad sweep of the geographical limitation demonstrates a lack of tailoring.''

Additionally, the proposed rule in H.R. 1256 would require ads to use only black text on a white background. The U.S. Supreme Court found a similar provision unconstitutional in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In that case, dealing with advertising for legal services, the Court held that the use of colors and illustrations in ads is entitled to the same First Amendment protections given verbal commercial speech.

Justice Byron White, in his opinion for the Court, wrote that pictures and illustrations in ads cannot be banned ``simply on the strength of the general argument that the visual content of advertisements may, under some circumstances, be deceptive or manipulative.''

So there are numerous speech restrictions in this legislation that raise serious First Amendment concerns. This will create a swarm of lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective approaches to tobacco use in the United States.

To include speech restrictions that a broad range of legal experts have stated are almost certain to be unconstitutional fatally taints this bill.

I know the bill is well-intentioned but I hope my colleagues will support the alternative offered by the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer.

Madam Speaker, in a recent Investors Business Daily op-ed, radio host Larry Elder wondered how the media's reporting would be different if a Republican were President.

Of a potential Republican President, Elder wrote, ``Imagine if his Secretary of Treasury had not paid taxes, he granted two dozen waivers to his no-lobbyists-in-government rule and he had promised bipartisanship but only got three across-the-aisle votes for his 'stimulus' package. Or if he tripled the projected annual deficit and intended, within a short period, to double the national debt.''

Elder's point is clear. The national media's double standard has meant a free pass for President Obama and the Democrats' budget.

The American people should insist on fair news coverage without regard to political party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1575 should not be on the floor today. In the rush to respond to the bonuses paid to AIG executives, some in the majority have, once again, let expediency override common sense. The Judiciary Committee has held no hearings, heard no expert witnesses, and provided no reasoned evaluation of this bill during the normal legislative process. Instead, the bill went directly to full committee markup within hours of its introduction. After markup, it was substantially rewritten behind closed doors. Now it has been rewritten in the dark, once again, and has been sent prematurely to the floor.

In the last few weeks, Congress has learned the hard way about the unintended consequences of rushing to legislate without adequate expert testimony or debate. The results this time could be more costly than any of us would want.

President Obama, Secretary Geithner, leading financial institutions, and even the Washington Post, have already sounded the alarm. Congress' haste to rewrite contracts, claiming that payments under the contracts were ``fraudulent conveyances,'' as this bill attempts to do, could scare banks and other institutions away from the government's financial rescue programs.

Keenly aware of this, President Obama has urged us to act intelligently, not out of anger, but to pass this bill would be to do the opposite of what President Obama has said that he wants.

Early last week, Secretary Geithner finally announced a toxic assets relief program, relying heavily on private participation. The markets responded by rallying strongly for the first time in months. Why would we scare private institutions away now just when we need them the most?

Bonuses like AIG's may seem unwise and unfair, but to companies receiving them and courts reviewing them, are they really fraudulent?

Our efforts to void legal contracts make the prospect of working with the government look like a walk through a minefield. Remember, it was the current administration that urged congressional Democrats to protect AIG's right to pay these bonuses through the stimulus bill. Congressional Democrats willingly complied. House Democrats passed a bill without even reading it and without any House Republican even supporting it. Then President Obama signed it.

How could bonuses that Congress and the President specifically ratified suddenly be fraudulent? If they were not fraudulent, how can this be anything other than an unconstitutional taking of contractual rights?

What is more, this bill is unnecessary. We have already passed tax legislation to recoup the AIG bonuses. Besides, a great majority of the key AIG bonus recipients have returned their bonuses.

In the end, New York Attorney General Cuomo expects to force the return of all bonuses that went to domestic recipients. He apparently is not as confident about his ability to recoup payments overseas. I am confident, however, that if Mr. Cuomo needs additional authority to recoup overseas payments, the New York legislature is competent to pass legislation through regular order to give him just that authority.

Meanwhile, we cannot say with any confidence that this bill will permit us to recoup anything beyond what Attorney General Cuomo has already recovered or may be able to recover. This bill, accordingly, may be utterly useless.

The AIG bonuses may have been unwise, but what was fraudulent about them when Congress and the President specifically ratified them?

The retribution this bill threatens rests on anger, not on sound policy. It will undoubtedly undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit bank rescue participants, so this bill will hinder a successful economic recovery rather than contribute to it.

Finally, the House just passed H.R. 1586. We do not need to take follow-up action, and we certainly do not need to take it in haste or to overreact. We should not compromise on our duty to the American people by rushing out this hasty, ill-considered and unnecessary bill. I fully expect there will be bipartisan opposition to this legislation.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address in a little bit more detail some of the defects in this bill.

Many of us believe that the AIG bonuses were unwise, but what was fraudulent about them? Urged on by the White House and by the Department of the Treasury, a provision to protect AIG's right to pay the AIG bonuses was sneaked into the stimulus bill, which was subsequently signed by President Obama.

How can bonuses that Congress and the President specifically ratified be fraudulent? If they were not fraudulent, how can this bill do anything but threaten an unconstitutional taking of contractual rights?

Bonus retribution rests on anger, not on sound policy. It will undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit bank rescue participants. President Obama, Secretary Geithner and others have all recognized the obvious, that the more we rewrite the contracts of companies participating in the rescue programs, the more the companies will run the other way from our programs.

Secretary Geithner has finally announced the program that was supposed to help the meltdown at the very outset, the toxic assets relief plan. The markets responded strongly and positively to that announcement just last week. So how can we take this action that will only scare participants and that program away precisely when we need them to succeed?

H.R. 1575 will put executive compensation decisions into a multitude of district judges' different hands. The bill cannot fairly or reliably restrain these 1,000-plus judges as they assess in districts across the country what they think is ``reasonably equivalent value for services.'' The bill is, thus, a prescription for arbitrary results.

What is more, in the cases in which the judges find that reasonable compensation was not exceeded, we will recover not one dime of these bonuses. So what is the point?

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the product of hurried decision-making, the trampling of regular order and insufficient vetting. In fact, this bill was rewritten twice behind closed doors before we arrived here today, and it still is riddled with all of the flaws that I have discussed. Mr. Speaker, the answer is therefore clear. We certainly should not pass this bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will be the remaining speaker on this side.

I will reserve the balance on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by reiterating that this bill is misguided and should be opposed for many reasons.

The AIG bonuses were unwise, but what was fraudulent about them? How can bonuses Congress and the President specifically ratify through the stimulus bill be fraudulent? Bonus retribution rests on anger, not sound policy. It will undermine the Federal Government's ability to recruit bank rescue participants.

President Obama has urged us not to act out of anger, and Secretary Geithner has finally just announced a toxic assets relief program relying heavily on private participation. The markets responded to Secretary Geithner by rallying strongly. Why would we scare the private institutions away now?

State fraudulent conveyance law is already working. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has used New York State law tools to force at least 15 of the top AIG bonus recipients to return their bonuses. He has recouped at least $50 million. He expects to recoup all bonuses paid to U.S. recipients, and he and other State authorities may recoup bonuses that went overseas.

H.R. 1575 puts executive compensation decisions into a multitude of district judges' different hands. H.R. 1575 cannot constrain executive compensation. It just leaves it to over 1,000 district judges to arbitrarily determine whether compensation exceeds a reasonably equivalent value for services.

The House just passed H.R. 1586. We don't need to take a follow-up action.

Just 2 weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1586 to go after the AIG bonuses under the Tax Code. H.R. 1575 is redundant and poses some of the same risk. So why does that make sense?

H.R. 1575 is not only unwise, it is unnecessary. It is not only unnecessary, it is the product of a ransacking of regular order. And not only that, it will hamper our economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues that Republican leader John Boehner, Whip Eric Cantor, and Conference Chairman Mike Pence are all going to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

I strongly urge a bipartisan ``no'' vote on H.R. 1575.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1256 directs the Secretary of HHS to promulgate an interim final rule that is identical to the FDA's 1996 rule, which legal experts from across the political spectrum have stated would violate the first amendment.

While these experts' views should carry great weight, even more persuasive is the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court also has weighed in on various provisions of the rule, finding them unconstitutional. In Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that was similar in many ways to the FDA's proposed rule. The statute banned outdoor ads within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds and also restricted point-of-sale advertising for tobacco products.

The Court held that this regulation ran afoul of the test established in the Central Hudson case, which defines the protection afforded commercial speech under the first amendment, as it was not sufficiently narrowly tailored and would have disparate impacts from community to community.

The Court then noted that since the Massachusetts statute was based on the FDA's rule, the FDA rule would have similar constitutional problems. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court, ``The uniformly broad sweep of the geographical limitation demonstrates a lack of tailoring.''

Additionally, the proposed rule in H.R. 1256 would require ads to use only black text on a white background. The U.S. Supreme Court found a similar provision unconstitutional in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. In that case, dealing with advertising for legal services, the Court held that the use of colors and illustrations in ads is entitled to the same first amendment protections given verbal commercial speech.

Justice Byron White, in his opinion for the Court, wrote that pictures and illustrations in ads cannot be banned ``simply on the strength of the general argument that the visual content of advertisements may, under some circumstances, be deceptive or manipulative.''

So there are numerous speech restrictions in this legislation that raise serious first amendment concerns. This will create a swarm of lawsuits that will only divert us from trying to develop more effective approaches to tobacco use in the United States.

To include speech restrictions that a broad range of legal experts have stated are almost certain to be unconstitutional fatally taints this bill.

I know the bill is well-intentioned, but I hope my colleagues will support the alternative offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, FBI Director Mueller in his recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee urged Congress to renew what he called exceptional intelligence-gathering tools. Earlier this month, I introduced legislation to do just that.

The Safe and Secure America Act extends for 10 years the sunset on two expiring PATRIOT Act provisions: Roving wiretaps, and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act business records.

Director Mueller reports that obtaining business records ``has been exceptionally helpful in our national security investigations.''

And the roving wiretap authority means that agents are no longer required to obtain a separate warrant for each phone, cell phone, or device a suspect uses.

I hope Director Mueller and the administration will ensure that these critical national security tools are reauthorized and kept in place.