GRAYSON: I'd like to ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions, and I'll yield to him for the purpose of having answers to these questions. Does the gentleman from Georgia know what a bill of Attainder is?

BROUN: A bill of, the answer's yes, in fact it's been very explicitly described by the court's.

GRAYSON: What is it?

BROUN: [long pause. Scrambling through papers.] The courts have applied a two pronged test. Number one, whether specific individuals or entities are affected by the staute, Number two, when the legislation affects a "punishment," on those individuals, it serves no legitamate regulatory purpose.

GRAYSON: What, um, does the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

BROUN: Oh, I suggest that this is not a Bill of Attainder. It's, um, certainly does focus on a specific entity, but it does not inflict punishment by any means. In fact…

GRAYSON: Will the gentleman from Georgia explain what the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a second? The gentleman from Florida?

GRAYSON: No. I'd like an answer to my question. [...]

GRAYSON: The question is, will the gentleman from Georgia agree with me that the Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision, but as an implementation of the seperation of powers, and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature. Will the gentleman agree to that?

BROUN: No, sir, I will not, and I ask counsel to help us with this. I think all this is determination of the court and I'd like to appeal to Mr. Sensenberner.

GRAYSON: Well, I'm sorry, but it's my time, not yours or Mr. Sensenberner's, so I will reclaim my time, and I will point out that what you just you would not agree to is from a Supreme Court case called the United States v. Brown, something I would expect you might know about, given your name.