Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that after the wonderful bipartisanship on the last vote today I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 512. When I heard the gentlelady talking about the analogy to a football referee having a conflict with a team playing, I was reminded of the game I saw this last weekend where unfortunately my alma mater, Notre Dame, didn't do too well against a Pac-10 team with Pac-10 referees. As a matter of fact, there was one case where it was clear that the fullback for Stanford didn't even come close to making a first down, and yet with some myopic vision, they were given a first down. But I would not suggest there was a conflict there. The way we played, we would have lost anyway. I would just say that we should proceed with great caution before depriving any individual State official or non-State official of their full rights as citizens to participate in the electoral process. Unfortunately, I feel the majority has preceded with H.R. 512 without adequate justification. The bill does prohibit the chief State election administrator from taking an active role in a political campaign of any Federal office. And while this bill places significant restrictions on the ability of secretaries of State to participate in the political process, it does so, in my judgment, without producing any justification why such a drastic action is warranted. Restricting secretaries of State from their First Amendment right to speak without any history of abuse is a dangerous precedent this House should not undertake. I notice that in the bill before us, we have exceptions. That is, if the secretary of State is himself or herself running for Federal office, they continue to be the secretary of State and the chief election officer. The analogy that was drawn between this situation and a Federal judge is an inept analogy because, I believe, under the canons of ethics a Federal judge cannot run for another Federal office while still occupying the position of Federal judge. Also, if an immediate family member is running for Federal office, the election officer of the State is not prohibited. It would seem to me that if you are going to argue for this bill on the basis of a conflict of interest, why do you exempt the greatest conflict of interest that there would be? That is, if the election officer is running for a Federal office, she is allowed to do so and continue to be the chief election officer. If one of her immediate family members is running, she--or he--is allowed to continue to participate fully in all of that election process. Now, if, in fact, the concern of the majority is that there is a conflict of interest, it is interesting that what most people would consider to be the greatest example of a conflict of interest is not covered here. Now I will listen to the majority as they tell us why that happens. Perhaps it is what we call that difficult truth. The Constitution might come into play here. But I would just wonder why, if they are going to say this is absolutely necessary and that any of us vote against it must want conflicts of interest, must wish that we have this cloud over our elections to exist, why those situations which would seem to be the greatest opportunity for that concern are specifically exempted under the terms of this bill. We can all agree that if someone is breaking the law and abusing their power to try to skew elections, they should be prosecuted accordingly. If, for instance, someone is standing outside a polling place with a billy club in his hand and is making threatening gestures to people as they come before him, have to pass by him to vote, and this person has had a record of saying that ``crackers' babies ought to be killed'' and stands on the street corner condemning racially mixed couples, but yet we have a Justice Department which says that that doesn't violate any laws. Maybe I would be a little more concerned about the bill before us if I found any evidence whatsoever of the other side being concerned about the New Black Panther Party standing there all dressed in black with a billy club as people come forward, and one of the two individuals is known as someone who has made those kinds of threats against somebody else merely because they are of another race. Now if we want to bring that forward, I think we could get a strong vote of support here. But we can't even get a hearing on that. We haven't heard a thing from our Judiciary Committee. It's more important to bring Steve Colbert to testify before our committee, for him to remain in character. Maybe we ought to bring one of those New Black Panthers to our committee and have him in character, as he was on the day of election. Maybe then we would be getting down to our concern for equal treatment of each and every voter in America. But when you have a Justice Department which decides they are not going to treat people equally based on their race, as was testified to last week, last Friday at the same time on the same day as Mr. Colbert was gracing us with his presence in our Judiciary Committee, and where we had this rush, this tremendous rush of cameras to cover him, yet we have very little coverage of the amazingly cogent testimony about terrible decisions that were made in the Justice Department in the voting rights section of the Civil Rights Division. That ought to be what we take our time discussing here. I'm not trying to denigrate the gentlelady's efforts here. I understand her sincerity in this bill. We have a dispute over whether this bill is the proper response to the situation she sees. But I find it very, very interesting that we can find time to bring comedians to Washington, D.C., to testify before committees, but we can't find the time with the committees of jurisdiction to investigate what appears to be an absolute disgrace with respect to the protection of individuals. I would just ask this question: If instead of the New Black Panther Party you had had there, you had had the New Klux Klan party dressed in white robes with billy clubs, standing in front of a voting place with both blacks and whites coming in, whether we would not have raised our voices in protest against that and demanded that the full extent of the law be brought against those people. But, no, we find ourselves too busy doing other things, too busy doing other things, bringing comedians to Washington, DC and forgetting about something taking place at that exact moment, where a career attorney in the Justice Department, who has been banished to some hinterland--I don't mean to say that. That might be someone's State that someone here represents. I apologize--who has been sent a way from main Justice and the basic responsibility he has had for protecting the rights of citizens and their votes, where he has testified, and yet we couldn't spend the time to pay attention to him, nor have we scheduled any hearings whatsoever in this Congress. Something is wrong. So I don't in any way suggest the gentlelady had anything to do with that or that this bill interferes with it. I am trying to show the contrast of what I happen to think is an immediate problem, as opposed to the potential problem that the gentlelady here has spoken about. It is an immediate problem when you have a situation with people with billy clubs standing in front of a voting poll with a reputation for having talked about the fact that people need to kill babies for the very reason that they happen to be of another race. That ought to outrage Americans. It ought to outrage every one of us here, and it ought to outrage everybody at the Justice Department, but thus far it has not. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in support of H.R. 5717. Once again, we are back in a bipartisan state supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Smithsonian Institution is an invaluable part of our national heritage and our ongoing commitment to historical preservation and scientific advancement. I am pleased to support this legislation sponsored by our friend and colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson, and the congressional members of the Smithsonian Board of Regents. This legislation will help further the institution's founding mission, which is to support and increase the diffusion of knowledge. This authorizing legislation supports the Smithsonian's important biological conservation work conducted at the National Zoological Park located in Front Royal, Virginia, and strengthens their collaborative partnership with George Mason University in these efforts. The planned renovation and construction, which leverages a very modest Federal investment with significant non-Federal funds, will enhance the education and professional training programs currently underway. The Smithsonian is truly a unique part of our American culture. I am pleased to support this authorization which helps the Smithsonian maintain its well-deserved international reputation for excellence in scientific discovery and advancement and its continued commitment to the environment that we must steward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5717.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1646. I was privileged to be the main sponsor of this, but this is one of those unique bills where every single member of the committee, Democrat and Republican, sponsored it. That is not unusual in the sense that the goal of this bill is to celebrate one of the greatest gifts we can give to our children; that is, the gift of reading. The first Library of Congress National Book Festival was held on September 8, 2001, so this year it celebrates its 10th anniversary with another highly attended, all-day event and remarkable panoply of authors. The National Book Festival has only grown in popularity over this last decade, and this year's estimate is that over 150,000 individuals attended the 2010 festival this past Saturday. The festival highlights and demonstrates the importance of literacy, creativity, and imagination in our schools, our young people, and throughout our society. The festival vividly brings to life the richness of books and fosters a lifelong love of reading. So we congratulate the Library of Congress for its achievements in hosting the festival and wish them continued success. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Deterding family for its legacy to Carmichael, California. After the marriage between Charles Deterding and Mary Shields in 1894, along with their three children they forded the American River during the dry months to claim their homestead. This is where Charles and Mary Deterding established their legacy in Carmichael--on 425 acres of farmland that they continued to plough and live on. The Deterdings' San Juan Meadow Farm was named for the old Mexican land grant on which Carmichael was later established. Their original farmhouse was on a bluff above what is now Ancil Hoffman Park. Clearing the land, they planted grains and raised livestock. Mary's lasting impression on Carmichael was her generosity. She donated wood for settlers' cooking and heating. She was the first president of a local improvement club that eventually evolved into the Carmichael Chamber of Commerce. This visionary helped establish the irrigation company that became the Carmichael Water District. A local school and an Arcade Park bear her name but Mary Deterding's legacy stands tallest in Palm Drive. The avenue that once led to the Deterding farmhouse is shaded by 88 date palms that Mary planted herself. Younger generations of Deterdings have since included builders, property developers, teachers, landscapers, military and nursing careerists. In 2006, family ranks were reinforced by the famous McNulty babies--quadruplets. The only boy, Russ, is named for his great- grandfather. Says patriarch Russ Deterding: ``As Mary and Charles' descendants, we have to admire how, 100 years ago, they survived such a challenging environment. Their work paved the way for what Daniel Carmichael developed. But nobody paved the way for Mary and Charles. They were the true pioneers.'' I am pleased to recognize and congratulate the Deterding family for over 100 years of contribution to the Carmichael community.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Justice Arthur G. Scotland for his life of service to our California judicial system. Justice Scotland is a native Californian born in Sacramento on October 19, 1946. He graduated from the University of California, Davis, and became a law enforcement officer with the California Department of Justice. He later graduated with honors from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1974. After serving as a Deputy District Attorney, Sacramento County, 1974- 76, California Deputy Attorney General, 1976-83, and Cabinet Secretary to the Governor, 1983-87, he was appointed as a Superior Court Judge by Governor George Deukmejian in 1987. Since 1989, he has served on the Courts of Appeal, appointed by Governor Deukmejian. In 1998, he became the Presiding Justice, appointed to the position by Governor Pete Wilson. In 2004, Justice Scotland was named Judge of the Year by the Sacramento County Bar Association. Active in his community, Justice Scotland was named Humanitarian of the Year in 2002 by the Sacramento County Bar Association for his volunteer work on behalf of the Sacramento Children's Home--a residential and treatment facility for abused and neglected children. He also received a community Service Award from the Center for Youth Citizenship for his volunteer work helping educate school children about our legal system about their rights and responsibilities as Americans. Presiding Justice Scotland has served with distinction on the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, since 1989--serving 9 years as associate justice and 12 years as presiding justice. During his tenure, Justice Scotland has participated in deciding more than 6,000 appeals and thousands of writ petitions, authoring 2,744 majority opinions, 48 concurring opinions, and 40 dissenting opinions. I am pleased to recognize and congratulate Justice Scotland on his retirement and for his dedication to our community.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Fire Chief Dan Haverty for his 27 years of service to our California communities. Chief Haverty began his career with the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District in Tahoma, CA. He entered the Fire Service 27 years ago after experiencing the unselfish acts of compassion given to his family by volunteer firefighters following an airplane accident in Ketchikan, Alaska, which took the lives of his sister and her four children. Haverty has served Sacramento County since 1987 when he joined the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (SMFD) as a firefighter and ended his tenure in the position of Assistant Fire Chief. While serving as Assistant Fire Chief at SMFD, he also served as Chief Assistant Deputy Director for the Training and Exercises Division within the Governor's Office of Homeland Security. Haverty joined the Folsom Fire Department in July 2007 as its Fire Chief. Chief Haverty belongs to many professional and community organizations including: the International Association of Fire Chiefs, American Society for Public Administration Sacramento Chapter, Golden State Donor Services, Folsom Lake Rotary, and Holy Trinity Parish. In April 2005, Chief Haverty donated a portion of his liver to former Sacramento Roman Catholic Bishop William Weigand. For his humanitarian acts, Haverty was awarded the Venerable Cross ``Pro Ecellesia et Pontifice'' from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. Chief Haverty most recently participated as a member of the Team Donate Life support crew in the Race Across America. The Race Across America was a 3,005 mile-long bike ride across the United States. The purpose of Team Donate Life's participation was to promote organ donation and transplantation. I am pleased to recognize and honor Chief Dan Haverty for his dedication to fire safety, his service to the City of Folsom, and his protection of the citizens of Sacramento County.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we just returned from, I think, the longest August recess that I have ever experienced; and I come back refreshed, refreshed from listening to my constituents back home. And they wanted me to deliver a message when I got back here. They said, Stop the spending; raising taxes on us in the midst of this economic downturn makes no sense whatsoever, get control of the budget--at least adopt a budget and follow it as we are required to do in our homes and in our businesses. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, they asked me to deliver this message: stop picking on the employers of America. If you want employees, you need employers. And stop making it more difficult for the small business men and women in my district to continue to operate. Get government out of the way. The people back home are willing to take the lead if we will just let them do it. Let's return to old-fashioned American principles. That's the way we march to the future.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is there any rule, under the House, that requires notice being given to the author of a bill when it is being brought up without any notice whatsoever, since I am the author of the 1099 repeal bill and have had it before this House since April of this year and given no notice? Is there any requirement under the rules that this be notified that this bill is going to come up?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The Speaker has just told us that because this is a bill being brought up under suspension of the rules that all rules are, therefore, suspended. My parliamentary inquiry is under regular rules. Is there any requirement that the author of a bill be at least given notice that that bill is to be brought up to the floor for consideration before it is considered?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to listen to this debate. It's almost as if those on the other side haven't been home and haven't seen what's really occurring. The folks back home know that when you are talking about the effects of the stimulus package, it has created government jobs, but we have lost considerable jobs in the private sector. In fact, the overall employment numbers are down in terms of people even seeking jobs by more than a million. And that's progress? If you really want to do something, get rid of this whole bill and instead pass a bill that gets rid of one of the most destructive things we have with respect to small business. That is section 9006 of the health care bill. It has nothing to do with health care. It has everything to do with adding tremendous new burdens of paperwork on businesses. It requires anybody involved in a business or trade, any time they purchase over $600 from any entity or individual, cumulative over a year, they have to file a 1099. A 1099. Not because you have any obligation to pay payroll tax, but because somehow we think everybody cheats. Because somehow we want to have a paper trail for every purchase you make. It is the universal snitch act. We don't trust fellow Americans. A government that doesn't trust its citizens is a government that the citizens will not trust. What we ought to do is just get rid of this bill and instead eliminate 170 words out of the 340,000 words in the so-called health care bill. Talk to your small business people. Ask them what they think would help them increase the opportunity to provide jobs. They will tell you this is number one on their list. We ought to bring it to the floor immediately, and we ought to get rid of this nonsense where we don't trust fellow citizens. Just to give you one example, one person who actually deals in the sale of gold coins said that he will have to file between 10,000 and 20,000 1099s next year.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Every single business person you will talk to will tell you how incredibly stupid this is, number one. And number two, it will create a disincentive for people to go to small businesses. Because if you want to diminish the number of 1099s you file, you won't go to your local restaurant, you won't go to your local hardware store, you will only go to the big chains. It is absolutely destructive. If you want to really do something, get rid of this bill and instead support the repeal of that section of the health care bill that has nothing to do with health care, but has everything to do with damaging small business and jobs in this country.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who supported the section of the bill that we had in the Judiciary Committee and attempted to convince others on my side to support it, because I believe we ought to expand it to include those people who assisted and those people who found that they had health problems after the time originally envisioned. But I don't have to go to my father confessor, as someone suggested, to say that I cannot support this bill. I did not believe that it was going to have attached to it a job- killing provision which is going to hurt jobs in my district and throughout California. I did not know we were going to have the open-ended type of program that was in title I. I fully thought that we would come to the floor with a bill that was bipartisan in nature and that was, in fact, what I envisioned when I voted for it and spoke for it on the Judiciary Committee. I am saddened, frankly, by having this bill presented the way it is today. I am not going to be here and complain about procedure. What I am going to do is complain about the result that's before us. We can and we have done better in the past when we have been confronted with very difficult issues on a bipartisan basis, when the Republicans were in charge, when the Democrats were in charge in the past, and we have been able to come up with legislation that got the support of this House. The unfortunate thing here is that this bill will not pass today; and yet we could have a bill that does, in fact, carry out all of the sentiments expressed on this floor today, but we are not going to have that chance, and I am saddened by that, not angered by that.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1789, but as someone who helped to write the Drug Control Act of 1986 that we seek to amend, I'd like to make a few observations to set the record straight. It is indeed true that the death of basketball star Len Bias served as an exclamation point concerning the threat posed to our Nation by the scourge of illegal drug use. The fact that someone who seemed bigger than life could fall prey to the growing cocaine epidemic brought home the reality of the danger to every home with a television set that had tuned into the University of Maryland basketball games. And that reality was not lost on this body. The number of Americans addicted to cocaine dramatically increased in the 1980s thanks in major part to the escalation in crack use. Hospital emergencies increased by 110 percent in 1986. From 1984 to 1987, cocaine incidents increased fourfold. The crack epidemic was associated with a dramatic increase in drug gang-related violence. A 1988 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that in New York City, crack use was tied to 32 percent of all homicides and 60 percent of all drug-related homicides. I would add that even 5 years after the drug bill was considered on this floor there was a growing concern over the crack epidemic which plagued minority neighborhoods. The acclaimed depiction of this scourge was even portrayed in the movie ``New Jack City.'' Director Mario Van Peebles, also one of the main characters in the film, observed that ``the immediate problem is that crack is and was a killer in the Black community today.'' That's what we faced at the time we passed this bill. This is the context of the crack epidemic and the 1986 drug bill. The concern about crack cocaine was, and in my view remains, a valid one. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, crack causes faster and shorter highs than powder, which results in more frequent use. Crack cocaine is also associated with gang activities and violence, as evidenced by U.S. Sentencing Commission data. There is, in my view, a basis for disparate treatment of those who traffic in crack versus powder. Having said that, the inclusion that there is a basis for treating crack and powder differently is in no way a justification for the 100- to-1 sentencing ratio contained in the 1986 drug bill. We initially came out of committee with a 20-to-1 ratio. By the time we finished on the floor, it was 100-to-1. We didn't really have an evidentiary basis for it, but that's what we did, thinking we were doing the right thing at the time. Certainly, one of the sad ironies in this entire episode is that a bill which was characterized by some as a response to the crack epidemic in African American communities has led to racial sentencing disparities which simply cannot be ignored in any reasoned discussion of this issue. When African Americans, low-level crack defendants, represent 10 times the number of low-level white crack defendants, I don't think we can simply close our eyes.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman. Although I cannot, and could not, support the legislation reported out of our committee to completely eliminate any disparity in the treatment of these illicit substances, that is not what we have before us today on this floor. I must say that from a law enforcement standpoint, perhaps the most important factor here is the amount of the substance that is covered. According to narcotics officers I have spoken with, you want to reach the wholesale and mid-level traffickers who often trafficked in 1-ounce quantities. That is why S. 1789 would raise the amount of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a mandatory 5-year sentence from 5 grams to 28 grams, which is close to the 1 ounce. This does seem to make some sense. It is a fair and just treatment of the problem. It serves the interests of law enforcement in reaching wholesale and mid-level traffickers while reducing the crack powder ratio to 18-to-1 from the current 100-to-1. I think this is tough but fair. I would not support going further. I support this bill very strongly. I believe that this is what justice should be about. This is a well-crafted bill. It is a good compromise. It serves the ends of justice and fairness. I hope people will support it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 4748, the Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act requires the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, to develop a counternarcotics strategy for the U.S. Canadian border. Given the escalating drug violence in Mexico, many may think that illegal drug trafficking only occurs across our southwestern border. And while the lion's share of cocaine and heroin is smuggled into America from Mexico, the U.S. Canadian border is a major transit point for high-potency marijuana, ecstasy and other illegal drugs. This is not something new. Several years ago, when I was chairman of a subcommittee on the Committee on Homeland Security, we held a hearing in our northwestern area, that is, on our U.S. Canadian border on the west side of the country, and at that time it was pointed out to us the major trafficking in what was known as ``BC Bud,'' a high-grade marijuana coming out of British Columbia, also large amounts of money from the United States crossing over into Canada, and a serious number of weapons transiting across our common border. It's gotten even worse since then. According to the 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment, the Asian drug trafficking organizations are responsible for the resurgence of ecstasy in the U.S. since 2005. And these organizations produce the drug in Canada and then smuggle it across our northern border. The U.S./Canadian border is remote, heavily wooded, and sparsely populated, ideal for smugglers seeking to move their product into the U.S. without being detected. These conditions have led to some creative, even brazen, trafficking methods. For instance, in Operation Frozen Timber, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2006, six smugglers were caught transporting marijuana and cocaine across the border using helicopters. One smuggler touted the operation as being even better than FedEx because ``they delivered anywhere in Washington State.'' Operation Iron Curtain, led by the Drug Enforcement Administration, resulted in charges against 45 suspects involved in trafficking approximately $250 million worth of high-grade hydroponic marijuana into the U.S. annually. America's Indian reservations along the Canadian border are also exploited by drug smugglers. Roughly 20 percent of the high-potency marijuana grown in Canada is smuggled across the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation in upstate New York. In 2006, Congress directed the ONDCP to prepare a counternarcotics strategy for our southwestern border. H.R. 4748 mirrors this requirement to produce a strategy for the northern border. The bill requires coordination with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, as well as other relevant Federal agencies. This legislation will help ensure a cohesive approach to combating drug smuggling across our border with Canada. While we continue to address drug trafficking across our southwestern border, we cannot and must not lose sight of the ease by which our northern border can be exploited by dangerous drug smugglers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate my remarks, and say that this is a very, very good idea. Hopefully, it will pass unanimously. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my friend, Mr. Scott from Virginia, the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, for working with dispatch to get this bill to the floor. The danger of shining a laser beam into someone's eyes is not a new concept. It is reported that the power density from a 1 milliwatt laser, a power common in the laser pointers we have become familiar with, focused to a point, is brighter than the equivalent area of the sun's surface. Understandably, this can cause temporary or permanent eye damage. The danger from shining a laser at the cockpit of a commercial aircraft, especially during a takeoff or a landing, is a tragedy waiting to happen. This bill will help prevent such a disaster from being realized. In 2005, when a similar bill was passed by this body, this emerging threat was estimated at 400 reported incidents over the previous 15 years. By contrast, in 2009 alone, there were almost 1,600 episodes reported. In 2010, there have been approximately the same number of incidents from 2009 in just the first half of the year. In my home State of California, there have been over 570 incidents so far in 2010. Mr. Speaker, we have discovered that a number of those incidents were reported to the regional air traffic control system unit in Sacramento within my district. Since the Judiciary Committee first began examining this issue, the effects of pilots being hit by a beam of a laser pointer have varied from causing the pilots to become distracted, to requiring emergency evasive maneuvers. Emergency maneuvers, to prevent a perceived mid-air collision, resulted from a wide variety of mistaken beliefs, including that the aircraft was about to strike the warning light on a tower or that the laser beam was actually the lights of an approaching aircraft. Law enforcement pilots are frequently targeted and have to consider the possibility that they are being illuminated by a laser scope attached to a rifle. Law enforcement pilots have, on occasion, been required to discontinue a response to a crime, a crime in progress, due to being hit by a laser. Some Federal prosecutors have declined to pursue cases under current law, believing that the current Destruction of Aircraft statute does not fit the facts of their particular laser case. Some States have statutes that have been successfully used to address this problem, but, unfortunately, many do not. This bill specifically addresses the incident of shining a laser pointer into an aircraft cockpit and will make, therefore, aircraft travel safer for pilots and for the public. While a number of laser pointers being aimed at aircraft cockpits has dramatically increased during the past 5 years, the power of the current generation of laser pointer devices has also significantly increased. The cost, on the other hand, has gone down, making them much more widely available. Additionally, there are ways to increase the power of certain lasers by replacing the diodes with those intended for other purposes. The problem of lasers being shone into cockpits is so prevalent in the Sacramento area that the FBI, FAA, Federal Air Marshal Service, as well as State and local law enforcement, have established a Laser Strike Working Group to address the problem, with other working groups expanding to other areas. This bill provides an important tool for securing the safety of air travel and is endorsed by the Air Line Pilots Association. I received a letter dated July 27 from the Air Line Pilots Association, International, wherein they say: ``The inappropriate use of widely available lasers against airborne flight crews is a genuine and growing safety and security concern. A laser illumination event can, at a minimum, be an unwanted flight crew distraction; and in serious cases can even lead to eye damage and temporary incapacitation.'' Going on, the Air Line Pilots Association, International states that ``your legislation is greatly needed to ensure that such reckless and malicious activity will, in fact, be classified and prosecuted as a Federal offense. We have worked with numerous Federal law enforcement organizations over the past years on this issue and there is strong agreement that such crimes should be addressed by Federal statute and not be adjudicated solely by State laws. H.R. 5810 will also help put the public on notice that shining laser lights into aircraft cockpits is a serious offense which will be met with serious consequences for those convicted of such crime.'' And in conclusion, the Airline Pilots Association, International states: ``We urge Congress to expeditiously pass this legislation and thereby enhance the safety and security of all commercial airline passengers and crew members.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 415, authored by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King), allows the Representative of the immediate family of deceased emergency personnel who are killed in the line of duty to provide the family with a Capitol-flown flag at their request. These families would also receive a certificate bearing an expression of condolence signed by the Speaker, as well as by the Representative providing the flag. Nine years later, the tragic events of September 11 are still a painful reminder of the sacrifices made daily by our first responders, including our firefighters, our law enforcement officers, our emergency technicians, and other rescue workers. These fallen heroes and their families deserve our appreciation, our thanks, and our honor for their sacrifice, and this resolution in a simple way will enable us to show that gratitude. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 415. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleague from Ohio that the last time we had a balanced budget on the Federal level was when we had a Democrat in the White House and a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate. Perhaps we ought to try that again after November. I support this legislation. I hope that there will be strong support for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the very beginning that I understand the sincerity and the strength of conviction of the gentlewoman from New York on this issue. I think we have a disagreement with respect to the times when firearms have been utilized to protect people from those who would otherwise do them harm, and I think there are some other reports that would suggest that that happens in far more instances than those incidents which result in harm to an owner of a gun or to someone in his or her family. One of the things I just would like to put on the record is the limited effect of today's amendment. When a debtor files for bankruptcy relief, he or she must choose whether to claim the package of Federal exemptions or the State exemptions available in the State of his or her residence. Frequently, debtors claim State exemptions because they are typically more generous to the debtors than are the Federal exemptions. Moreover, under current bankruptcy law, States may opt out of the Federal exemption scheme by passing a law that prohibits debtors in those States from claiming the Federal exemptions. It is my understanding that, to date, 34 States have enacted such opt-out legislation, so debtors in only 16 States will ever be able to take advantage of the new Federal firearms exemption we are considering today. I do believe it is an appropriate piece of legislation, but one should understand the limited nature of its application. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that, while I support the creation of this exemption, the exemptions that Americans really want right now are exemptions from unemployment and skyrocketing national debt. When I was home in my district this past weekend, my constituents talked to me about the exemption from the crushing burden of higher taxes that is poised to be unleashed upon them by the majority of this House at the end of the year. I am bemused at times when I hear people saying, Well, you Republicans won't pay for the tax cuts that are already in existence, which is another way of saying that the government has the first call on your money, and therefore, if we have lower taxes than otherwise would be the case, somehow we have done something wrong when, in fact, what will occur if we do not extend the current rates of taxes on the Federal level will be, by some calculations, the most massive, single tax increase in the history of the United States. That is very, very disappointing. It is sort of a play on the language I used to hear on this floor from the majority when they used to talk about tax expenditures. That's another way of talking about the impact of ``tax cuts,'' meaning that somehow the Federal Government is expending something when it allows you or I or any American to keep the money in our pockets. That does indicate a philosophical difference that does divide us, unfortunately, a philosophical difference which is based on the premise that the money you earn is not yours, that the money you earn is kept by you only at the sufferance of the government and that if, in fact, the government by its generosity allows you to keep that money there, that somehow you should genuflect in supplication because you have done something to take money that justly belongs to them. So we are going to find out by the end of this year whether that concept of whose money it is prevails or whether it is, in my judgment, the proper viewpoint that the money you earn is, in your case, yours first and that the government ought to only exact the smallest amount of funds, that which is necessary to do those things that are required by government function. So I must lament that fact while I do continue to support this piece of legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me say, Mr. Speaker, both as a Member of Congress and as the former attorney general of the State of California, I have long been concerned with the plight of those who have been victimized by crime. The anti-stalking law we had in the State of California was one that we worked with local law enforcement on and the agents that worked for me also worked on that in coordination with the local law enforcement officers. Certainly, those who have suffered from the threats of stalkers warrant our concern and our action. I also would like to acknowledge the work, the pioneering work, that was done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) on this with the original Federal anti-stalking legislation. I certainly appreciate the motivations and efforts of the gentlewoman from California who brings this bill here today in an effort to respond to this serious issue. However, I must suggest that legislation of this magnitude is of sufficient importance that it warrants attention by our committee commensurate with the serious nature of the stalking issue. Regrettably, we have had no hearings on this bill, no markups, no legislative process of any kind. Until this evening, we did not even know the full contents of this bill, and now Members are being asked to vote on it. Further, it's my understanding the bill was added to the suspension calendar late last night. I understand that we may need to revisit the Federal statute now if this is not adequate to protect the victims of stalking. But having just received a copy of the final version of this legislation this evening, I do wish we had had more time to devote to this important bill. Certainly, victims of emotionally and physically devastating crimes like stalking deserve the very best this Congress can produce, rather than us perhaps making some errors in the bill that we are considering, particularly a bill that was finalized an hour before votes. Although this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules, the lack of process surrounding this vote seems to have suspended all of the rules, unfortunately. Nevertheless, the proposal does address issues of legitimate concern to stalking victims. I, therefore, support this measure, and I would argue that all Members should support this measure. However, I do feel it necessary to register strong disappointment considering the method with which this bill has been brought to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.