Pursuant to the ord of the house of january 6 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morningr. The chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour, and each member r than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. But in no event shall debate continue beyond 1 50 p. M. The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. Foxx for five minu ms. Foxx thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker paying for college is hard work and its getting more difficult as tui and fees continue to increase at rapid rates. Fortunately, American Families have an investment tool known as a 529 plan to help them save for their childs college education. Since 2001 students have been able to withdraw earni from these plans tax free if the funds are used to pay for qualified Higher Education expenses. It was disheartening to learn last week that president obama now wants to tax those withdrawals and treat the earnings as student income, which would hurt a childs chances of receiving financial aid. With Student Loan Debt surpassing credit card bet, it is incredibly irresponsible of the president to take away this valuable tool that millions of American Families use to save for college. House republicans will fight this attempt to raise taxes on hardworking American Families. We want to encourage not discourage families from investing in their childs future. Mr. Speaker, i yield the speaker pro tempo r recognizes the gentleman om,. Poe, for five minutes. Mr. Poe mr. Speaker our diplomacy is at work with respect to iran. Wherefore the first time in decade we have halted the progress of its Nuclear Program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. This absurd claim by the president last week earned him three pinocchios from the washington post. Many disagree, including a former iaea official who says it appears that the prod of centrifuge components continues. No nuclear componente been installed, but it does not mean that the production of those came to a halt. For over a decade, the United States along with the rest of the u. N. Security council has triebut failed to reach a deal with tehran on its Nuclear Weapon program. Iran has defiantly marched toward developing Nuclear Weapons by refusing to negotiate with the United States in good faith. Instead, its leaders have continued to cl for the destruction of israel and the destruction of the unes. Now isnt that lovely. Just as november in t of Nuclear Negotiations the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps released this statement. The United Statess still the great satan and number enemy of Islamic Revolution and Islamic Republic and the islamic iranian nation. Irans actions over ths are not surprising. After all it is the Worlds Largest statesponsor of terrorism. Using both its military and proxy hezz bowla, iran has hezbollah, iran has planned attacks around e world. Hezbollah is the puppet but iran pulse the strings. After years of defying cost to halt its nuclear weap development, the west played hardball with sanctions, primarily targeting irans bank and energy industries. The sanction sanctio worked. Irans g. D. P. Dropped for the first time in 20 years and iran came to the negotiatin table. Then came the white f and the great retreat of 2013. The administration relaxed sanctions just when iran was beginning to feel the consequences of its actions. Relaxing sanctions has helped iran, helped its economy, and resulted in iran reverting to its defiant ways. Mr. Speaker, sanctio worked. Now is not the time to repeat retreat, appease, and play the chamberlain. If an we should increase sanctions. Congresin do that, but the president now has pub lkly told congress and iran that publicly told congress and iran that he will veto any legislation that incre sanctions. This see at odds with the United StatesNational Security. Euran the u. S. Want to relax sanctions. They are acting like timid sheep. We cannot lay down with the jackal of the desert, iran. Mr. Speaker, loosenin on sanctions is foolish, dangerous and not dealing in reality. Further the iranian negotiateations dont even discuss Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Why is iran building Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles . Pr netanyahu said it best. Iran isnt building icbms for israel. They have missiles that us. The they areg icbms to hit america. Iran wants icbms to carry a Nuclear Weapon across the pond, to us the u. S. A top advisor to the iranian president recently said, obama is the weakest of all u. S. President s. Nois time for the leader of the free world to prove iran wrong. The world including o enemies are watching. The u. S. Must make it clear and unequivocal. There reductions in sanctions without verified steps to show that tehran is abandoning, not just freezing, its Nuclear Weapon pr if iran obtains nukes, the consequences are all b israel will be less secure. The United States will be less secure. And other nations like saudi arabia, turkey, and egypt will all seek and obtain nukes to have the balance of power in the middle east. The iranian government cannot be dealt with like normal countries. This hug diplomacy with them is not in the National Security interest ofteess. Their Supreme Leader has never wa on his religious and politil agenda to destroy the United States. Iran must be forced tsclongr o weictions thatrile irans economy to force the iranians to stop their Nuclear Weapon development. And hopefully at some point the of iran will soon have had enough war mongering by its leaders and replace the government. Mr. st the way it is. I yield back. The speaker pro tempo pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2 00 p. M. Today. Here are a few comments we recently received on the state of the Union Address. As a scientist, i appreciate the present decision on expanding nasas role. It is exciting to see focus on the future instead of the past. A couple points i want to raise on the speech tonight. I thought the rebuttal he gave to the republicans was spectacular. At the same time, boarded up and set about foreign policy. He mentioned how he has been using drones responsibily. But he has killed hundreds, if not thousands of people, without congressional authority. A few things about the present state of the Union Address some other things heavenly up to it, i have to argue the opposite. They said that unemployment has gone down, the economy is improving, i do not think that is the case. People have to remember that within employment, you can only have your extension for so long. When those people get dropped from unemployment, they no longer called as unemployed. Thats not really indicator of the economy going up, it is people falling through the cracks and being forgotten about. If you look at from that perspective, the rate of unemployment in this country is probably 10 points higher than what it is being estimated as. Continue to let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us at 202 626 3400. Email us, or send us a tweet. Join the c span conversation. Loretta lynch is president obamas nominee to replace eric holder. She goes before the senate for her confirmation hearing this week. C span 3 will have live coverage on wednesday. The 2010 she has served as the u. S. Attorney for the Eastern District of new york. On november 8 the last year, president obama nominated her to succeed eric holder. If confirmed by the senate, she would be the first African American woman, the second African American after eric holder, and the second woman after jett reno. She graduated from harvard and she is 55 years old. Again, you can see that at 10 00 am on c span 3 on wednesday. The Supreme Court heard an oral agreement on tuesday on the financier financing of judicial elections. This one hour oral argument. We would hear an argument next in the case 15 499. Mr. Pincus. Thank you. Florida sought contributions that were completely lawful. The First Amendment bars florida from prohibiting that speech. The special question of course is what standard of review. We submit that strict scrutiny applies. For several reasons. My friend relies on the courts decision for applying the closely drawn scrutiny standard. That standard is not applied for several reasons. I think it is whatever the standard. The florida rule was simply no face to face solicitations. Thats it. The reviews seem to believe that would be a valid regulation. I would certainly concede because my client did not do any face to face solicitation. The First Amendment in relation to the election justice. I think the state could adopt a prophylactic rule on face to face solicitation. Certainly, one on one solicitations. There might be some applications of that rule that were that made that ruled invalid as it applied. For example, face to face solicitation of ones relatives. I think the First Amendment would certainly allow the First Amendment would not allow that for candidates of Political Office. Exactly. You are recognizing that there is a difference between judicial office. The First Amendment allows the state to do things with respect to the election judges, they would not allow them to do with respect to the election of members of the legislator. I guess i would the First Amendment would allow a ban on some solicitation under coercion theory. Placed let me step back. You gave me now are you telling me that the answer was ill considered . Aa ban on face to face solicitation by candidates for office. Good or not. Wade be judged by the same standard as face to face solicitation by political . I think it would be judged by the same strict scrutiny standard. The government could advance in that consideration in the judicial context. One of them does not exist in the legislation context preserving partiality. I dont want to say that there is no ban on solicitation that would be permissible in the nonjudicial context. If you have the statue that he said would be valid, on applying face to face solicitation what about a personal one on one letter . I can see the court saying this is underinclusive. Then, if we say, the one to one letter, thats like a personal solicitation. If we condemn not, what about a letter to five people . It seems to me that we make the initial concession, you have a real problem in determining how to make this not over or underinclusive. I dont think so, justice. I think the court in other contexts has drawn a line between britain creek patient and oral communication. In the lawyer solicitation process, for example. The court has drawn that distinction. I think there is a reasonable distinction that says that whatever the rule may be, written communication is fundamentally different if the interest that the government is asserting his coercion. What if i write something down on a tablet and handed to you . Is that written . I think i would say in person. The question here is in all of the context that we are talking about here, the interest is whether the person solicited is being coerced. Give us the three interesting start off saying were at issue here. You never got to that. Sorry, your honor. Its your fault. There are 3 inches. The interest of print what about the interest of judicial dignity . Stuff that we dont let judges do but we let other people do. Such as, its at least a tradition, im not sure if its in ethical rules, but assume it was, that judges do not respond in op ed pieces to criticisms of the decisions. John marshall did that but he did anonymously. Lets assume that that will was written into judicial ethics. With what that stands . I dont believe it suffices to support the prohibition here for several reasons. Answer my question, would that be okay . In the interest of judicial dignity. I think there is such an interest. I think it is executed principally through the acts of judges and is maybe analyzed under the Government Employee free speech rubric. It doesnt necessarily have to reach a compelling interest for to justify some restriction on the judges speech. I think in this context, to the extent that the interest is not apply for several reasons. First of all, were talking about the Campaign Context which is different. Second, to the extent that the interest would apply here, a fundamental principle of the florida regulatory scheme is that justice may write thank you notes for contribution. They can say thank you. Florida did not let them do that. Im trying to find out that if you think you can have different rules for judicial elections than for political elections. We are told by the florida justice that if i had a horrendous problem with corruption and they wanted to get a handle on it. Small steps. To answer your question, yes, there can be different rules. Two of the answers that i mentioned interest in preventing partiality and coercion, applied differently in the judicial context. I think in your hypothetical could florida prohibit in person one to one solicitations or in person solicitations to a group of some size yes, i think they could do that. I dont think that can be done for legislative candidates. You argue the judiciary to be above the political frame. We have this restriction on putting themselves forward as a solicitor. A couple of answers, your honor. I think the problem with the state having a interest is the state has elected an election system that puts the judges in a frame. Some of this comes along with the fact that states have decided to include judges by election. That includes the fact of election in some First Amendment requirements that apply to election related speech. I think thats a problem with making a decision. The second problem is the particular scheme that florida has adopted here. I said, it allows judges involvement in the contribution system that the judge can know who solicited, who gives, and right thank you notes. What florida makes those decisions hhow can the judge not know . Especially some states want disclosure. Is the state supposed to not read the disclosure list . There are some states that prohibit the judge from finding out who donated. Minnesota for example. Thats unworkable. I think there is a question of how effective it is. It underlies what is going on here. Any incremental benefit that is served by prohibition on solicitation, given the reality that the judge knows, and that they can write thank you notes so, you are suggesting that the judge could somehow be prevented from knowing to respondent . That is true in some states. Im asking whether or not that is consistent with the theory of where we can draw the constitutional lines. I dont i think the court could conclude, as the eighth circuit did, that in minnesota, state like that, with the judge doesnt know, there is even less of a reason to prohibit solicitation. The judge will not know who responded. A good honest midwesterner. Can i go back to judicial dignity court . There it is very rare that either by letter or by personal calls that i asked the lord to do something. Whether to serve on the committee, help organize something, do whatever it is that im asking. The bat lawyer will say no. Isnt it inherent in the lawyer judge context that people are going to say yes . I dont think so, your honor. In the solicitation, the petitioner was a candidate. There was no response. I think im talking about this prohibition. This dealing with an issue that does happen in the vast majority of cases. Heres the contrast, your honor, if i may. I guess my question is what is the difference between that letter and the following letter that is signed by the members of the committee which is permissible under florida law. Dear joe, judge jones asked us to serve on the Campaign Committee and we are writing to ask you to contribute to his election. As you know, florida law permits judge jones solicitors. The solicitation really does not make that much of an thats what you think. I can actually see how receiving a signed letter from the judge saying or a telephone call, or personal meeting, has an incrementally greater impact than a letter. Today, i even get a whole lot of Campaign Committee letters. I just throw them out. If a candidate calls me, or reaches out to be, i tell them i cant talk to them. I have a reason, and an excuse, a lead is not have that reason or excuse. I think thats why at least one line i think is permissible. A line between written communication and all communication either in person, one to one, or in a small group. The question in the First Amendment context, where he is talking about critical speech we have a court recognized. It is the intertwining of substantive mmessages. There has to be a really good reason. We submit as judge of the sixth circuit, 11th circuit, and ninth circuit has found, theres not enough that. Is there anything in florida rule that would prohibit judge jones in your example from giving the committee a list of people to contact . There is a rule that says that judges cant, oor candidates cant, do directly indirectly what they could do directly. Your problem in the way