Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the original sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Folsom High School Bulldogs Varsity Football Team for their 2010 CIF Division II State Championship win on December 18, 2010. With their win at the CIF Division II State Championship in Carson, against Serra High School of Gardena, the team joins the level of elite high school football teams in the State. Their win is a source of pride for the students, faculty, and the alumni of Folsom High School, as well as the residents of Folsom. The Bulldogs had an impressive season in which they attained a 14-1 record. Along the road to the State Championship, the Folsom Bulldogs had one of the greatest playoff runs in Section history. After defeating a solid 6-4 Roseville team 56-13 in the first round, the Bulldogs then steamrolled the 10-1 Vacaville Bulldogs 75-6 in round two. In the Section Semi-finals the Folsom Bulldogs traveled to Atwater to face the 12-0 Buhach Colony Thunder. The Bulldogs defeated the Thunder 55-20. In front of a record crowd of 20,000 plus fans, the Bulldogs battled the nationally ranked Grant Pacers to a 41-20 victory and the Division II Section Championship. Winning the Section Championship in the toughest division in the San Joaquin Section and finishing the season with a 13-1 record earned the Folsom Bulldogs a State Bowl berth. This set the matchup between the 13-1 Folsom Bulldogs and the 14-0 Serra Cavaliers in the Division II State Championship. The Serra Cavaliers came into the State Championship game with a 29-game winning streak. The Folsom Bulldogs proved to be too much for the Cavaliers as the Folsom Bulldogs rolled to a 48-20 victory. This earned the Folsom Bulldogs their first State Championship and a number 5 National Ranking by MaxPreps. In their 5 postseason games the Folsom Bulldogs faced teams with a combined record of 55-5 and outscored them 275-79. This is an amazing feat by an amazing team. Postseason awards include Dano Graves winning the title of Cal-Hi State Football Player of the Year and the MaxPreps National Player of the Year. Coach Kris Richardson has been honored as the Nike and MaxPreps Division II State Coach of the Year. This team represents heart, strength, determination, and resilience. I commend Coach Kris Richardson for his leadership throughout the season, and applaud him and his fellow coaches for keeping the team focused and determined to achieve their goal of a state championship. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the Folsom High School Varsity Football Team.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would make a point of order that the gentleman has made a personal reference to me and then followed that up by saying that what I said was a lie.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. But I would ask that the Speaker admonish Members not to question the motivation of other Members in reference to any debate that is taking place.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. All I just want to make clear in the Record, I never made a reference to the government takeover of health care in my speech, and the gentleman was errant in making a personal reference to what I had just said.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. My name happens to appear on this bill as the original author of this bill, H.R. 4. I remember when I introduced this last April, Members on that side of the aisle were told by their leadership don't dare go on this bill to repeal this necessary provision of the Affordable Care Act. By the way, if it is truly an affordable care act, why has Secretary Sebelius granted over 700 waivers to companies and unions? Because it's not affordable. Why has virtually every member of my constituency who has health insurance had an increase in their premiums as a direct result of the ``Affordable Care Act''? Just a passing question because I'm asked that all the time by my constituents. Why did I introduce this? Because provision 9006 of the bill has nothing to do with affordable care and has everything to do with the capacity of our friends on the other side to find ingenious ways of impacting business because I guess business is considered bad. Well, I've got an answer for you today to the question of who creates jobs. This is who creates jobs: small business. And this particular section of your so-called Affordable Care Act kills business, kills small business. What does it do? It is based on the assumption that everybody cheats. Why? Because the 1099 form is usually utilized for the purpose of making sure you carry out your obligation to pay payroll tax. But what did we do in the so-called Affordable Care Act? We increased the reach of 1099s so that when you have no obligation to pay anything, you have to report on the person on the other side of the business transaction; so that they, supposedly, are cheating, and therefore we have what's known as the universal snitch act. The idea that it's going to gain $19 billion, in my judgment, is created out of whole cloth. You have to assume that almost everybody cheats to get your $19 billion. And here's the game here in Washington, D.C.: We create a new obligation on business that's never existed before. We then secretly put it in a bill--virtually no one on this floor knew it was in the bill--and then we score it for gaining $19 billion to the Treasury. And if I dare come to this floor to repeal it, I'm obligated to come up with $19 billion in new taxes or some sort of a spending cut? The American people ought to understand the game that's played. In secret, we pass something like this, which has an unbelievably pernicious effect on business. Now, how does it have such an effect? It requires every single person involved in business or trade to go into accounting to make sure that every time they reach that threshold of $600 or more with anybody they purchase something from they have to file a 1099. Here's what someone in my district just emailed me, a small business person, a woman: ``I have 15 employees. As owner, I am the HR department, the bookkeeping department, the administration department, and still serve my customers while surviving this economic climate. It will be a tremendous burden, both in time and dollars, to send out 1099s to all my vendors--appliance manufacturers, parts distributors, other suppliers, utility companies.'' It is a job-killer provision. We brought this H.R. 4 to the floor to get rid of a job-killer provision. The other reason why it is a double-edged sword on small business is, if you want to minimize the number of 1099s that you file, you will not go to your local hardware store. You will not go to your local restaurant. You will go to the big box store. You will go to the chain restaurant. And we are killing small business on this floor.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So I understand the sincerity of the other side of the aisle, of those who are concerned about the middle class. Who do you think small business is? This is the middle class in my district and virtually every district across the country. These are the people who create jobs. You will put a dagger in their side. And now you come up and argue against passing this legislation because you are concerned about the middle class. You are killing the middle class with the provision in the health care reform bill, so-called. What we are trying to do is to get rid of that. We are trying help the middle class. We are trying to help the job creators. We are trying to help the people in our districts who don't have jobs. Don't distract the debate on this job-killer piece of legislation. Give us some relief, which is being called for all around the country.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The gentleman made a personal reference to me, stating that I made a statement on the floor, and then called that the biggest lie of the year. Is that, in fact, an appropriate comment to be made on the floor during debate?

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate the time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are bringing H.R. 4 to the floor. This is a bill that I introduced in its original form last April 26 when we looked at the health care bill that had passed and saw that this, which has absolutely nothing to do with health care, this new burden on businesses, this double-edged sword against small business, was put in that bill supposedly to pay for part of the health care bill. Now, we have our Democratic friends talking about the pay-for here. I happen to think that we don't even need a pay-for because I think there is a game that is played in this place, which is we will put something in the health care bill that virtually nobody knows is in there. I bet you 99 percent of the Members of the House and the Senate who voted on that bill didn't even know this provision was in there. We then have it scored as somehow gaining $19 billion for the Federal Government over the next 10 years, which I happen to think is made out of whole cloth because you have to assume that virtually everybody cheats in order for you to come to that conclusion. And then if we say we now want to get rid of this unnecessary burden, which, by the way, when I introduced this last April, I couldn't get a single Democrat to join me on. I was told by Democrats that the leadership had said, Don't get on that bill; don't dare do anything like that because that will be the first repeal of the health care bill. After a while I finally got some to join me and now there are 38 Members, I believe, on the other side that have joined so that we now have a total of 278 Members, I believe, that have cosponsored my bill, H.R. 4. But the point is, we bring this new obligation in, this new paperwork obligation, we claim it's going to gain us $19 billion, and then what's the joke on the American people? If we dare repeal it, we're responsible for somehow coming up with $19 billion in additional taxes. Now I know what the Ways and Means Committee has done. They've added this to the bill, a pay-for, and I understand the justification for it. But frankly the rules are such that they're gamed against the average American citizen. You come up out of whole cloth to create this new obligation in your bill, and then once you do and see what the actual implication is and small business said this is a job killer, you say, ``Okay, we'll allow you to bring it to the floor but only if you pay for it with new taxes in some way.'' Well, our side has looked at it and said, instead of that, why not say those things that are not to be given to folks under this bill ought not to be given to folks under this bill? That is, overpayments ought not to be allowed. As Secretary Sebelius said when your side brought up a very similar provision last year, she said, basically, this is a way to recapture funds.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. And so I would just like to get away from the confusion that is being displayed on the floor today and just get back to the essence of this bill. It is to repeal a provision that was put in the health care bill that virtually no one knew about, that is a job killer, that is recognized as being a job killer, that the other side with the majority could have at any time last year gotten rid of, which finally the President recognized in his State of the Union address is an excess in this health care bill, and let's not make it a political football now and say, well, now it's a tax, or now it's this, or now it's that. Frankly it is an attempt to try and repeal a section of the health care bill that never should have been there in the first place, that has erroneous premises on which it was developed, a suggestion that somehow most Americans involved in business cheat. That's the only way you can justify $19 billion coming back to the Federal Treasury. If you believe that the average American businessman and businesswoman, particularly small businessmen and small businesswomen, are cheaters, I never have accepted that. I won't accept that today. And, frankly, we ought not to allow this kind of debate to stop the repeal of this provision of the health care bill.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 386) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 386, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the danger of shining a laser beam into someone's eyes is not news. What is news is the ever-increasing number of incidents of laser pointers being directed at the pilots of commercial and law enforcement aircraft. In 2005, when a similar measure was passed by this body, this emerging threat was estimated at 400 reported incidents over the previous 15 years. By contrast, in 2009, there were almost 1,600 episodes reported. In 2010, there were over 2,800 incidents reported. As the Airline Pilots Association has stated in its letter of support for this legislation, ``The inappropriate use of widely available laser pointers against airborne flight crews represents a genuine and growing safety and security concern. At a minimum, the laser illumination of a cockpit creates a flight crew distraction, and in more serious cases, can result in eye damage and temporary incapacitation.'' Mr. Speaker, the danger from shining a laser into the cockpit of any aircraft is truly a tragedy waiting to happen. The ominous prospect of a catastrophe is particularly high during the takeoff and landing stages. Emergency maneuvers to prevent the misperception of midair collisions have also occurred. In one instance, the pilot thought he was about to strike the warning light on a tower. In another case, the laser beam was thought to be the lights of an approaching aircraft. Law enforcement pilots, unfortunately, 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 in progress due to being hit by a laser. At the same time, it is an unfortunate fact that some Federal prosecutors have declined to pursue cases, believing that the current Destruction of Aircraft statute does not fit the facts of their particular laser cases. Some States have statutes that have been successfully used to address this problem, but many more do not. H.R. 386 specifically addresses shining a laser pointer into an aircraft cockpit and will make aircraft travel safer for pilots and the public. It is not only the number of laser pointers being aimed at aircraft cockpits that has dramatically increased during the past several years. The power of the current generation of laser-pointer devices has also significantly increased. Their cost, on the other hand, has gone down, making them much more widely available. The problem of lasers being shown into cockpits is so prevalent that in my area, the Sacramento area, the FBI, the FAA, and the Federal Air Marshal Service have joined with State and local law enforcement in establishing a Laser Strike Working Group. These working groups have also expanded into other areas of the country. H.R. 386 provides an important tool in our efforts to enhance the safety of air travel. This body passed identical language by a voice vote at the close of the 111th Congress. It is my hope that all Members will join me in supporting this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a timely matter. There was a press report just this week that police are trying to find the person who, on Friday morning, pointed a green laser beam both at an airplane and at a news helicopter in the Phoenix area. There have been incidents all around the country. This is not just something that is peculiar to my area; it is something that is increasing in terms of severity and in the number of incidents, so we need to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I urge my fellow Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 368) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 368, currently under consideration.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Removal Clarification Act of 2011, sponsored by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), primarily amends section 1442 of title 28 of the U.S. Code. This is a statute that allows Federal officers, under limited conditions, to remove cases filed against them in State court to U.S. District Court for disposition. The purpose of section 1442 is to deny State courts the power to hold Federal officers criminally or civilly liable for acts allegedly performed in the execution of their Federal duties. This does not mean Federal officers can break the law; rather, it just means that these cases are transferred to U.S. District Court for consideration. Congress wrote the statute because it deems the right to remove under these conditions essential to the preeminence of the Federal Government on those matters entrusted to it under the Constitution. Federal officers or agents, even Members of Congress, should not be forced to answer in a State forum for conduct asserted in the performance of Federal duties. The Supreme Court weighed in on this matter long ago. As the Court explained in the case of Willingham v. Morgan, the Federal Government can only act through its officers and agents, and they must act within the States. If, when acting and within the scope of their authority, those officers can be arrested and brought to trial in a State court for an alleged offense against the law of the State, yet warranted by the Federal authority they possess; and if the general government is powerless to interfere at once for their protection, the operations of the general government may at any time be arrested at the will of one of its members. District courts have inconsistently interpreted the statute. Most recently, in March, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court ruling in Texas that the Federal removal statute does not apply to a Texas law involving pre-suit discovery. Because 46 other States have similar laws, the House General Counsel's Office is concerned that more Federal courts will adopt this logic. The problem occurs when a plaintiff who contemplates suit against a Federal officer petitions for discovery without actually filing suit in State court. Many Federal courts now assert that this conduct only anticipates a suit; it is, therefore, not a ``cause of action'' as contemplated by the Federal removal statute. The problem is compounded because of a separate Federal statute, section 1447 of title 28. Therein it requires U.S. district courts to remand any case back to State court if ``at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.'' Judicial review of remand orders under section 1447 is limited and has no application to suits involving Federal officers and section 1442. So this means remanded cases brought against Federal officers under these conditions cannot find their way back to Federal court, a result that conflicts with the history of the Federal removal and remand statutes. While we passed a predecessor bill last July, the other body developed minor amendments to clarify the text. These changes were vetted with House Judiciary and we endorse them. The revisions improve the bill in two ways. First, the new language stipulates that only Federal issues are removable to Federal court. And second, the text provides that a 30-day removal ``clock'' is triggered either by a request for testimony or documents, or an order enforcing such a request. In addition, the floor version strikes section 3 of H.R. 368. This is superfluous language that references a favorable CBO score inserted in the Congressional Record last year in advance of our consideration of the predecessor bill. Section 3 isn't needed because we have an updated CBO score--also favorable--that applies to this year's bill. In closing, I would like to thank Congressman Johnson for his hard work on this project, and I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 368. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing this bill to the committee and to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 347) to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code, as amended.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, while we were gone last week, the United States Department of Justice made an unfortunate decision announcement. They announced that they would no longer defend an act of Congress that was signed into law by President Clinton, that is, the Defense of Marriage Act. The statement that came out of the Justice Department said that they could find no constitutional basis for defending that law. I recall we had the same thing happen in my home State where then-Attorney General Jerry Brown said he could not defend Proposition 8 which dealt with the definition of marriage. Having served in that office in California, I can tell you, I defended laws that I disagreed with. I defended laws that I had voted against, and I felt it was my solemn obligation to uphold the Constitution and the laws duly enacted in my State, just as I believe the Attorney General of the United States has that obligation on the Federal level. It is beyond disappointment. I believe it is a dereliction of duty. To somehow now find that there is no constitutional basis for defending that law is incredible and I think regrettable, and I think we ought to look into it.