Floor Statements

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.

Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

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?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.

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?

Will the gentleman yield on that?

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, in the mid-1990s, when I was privileged to serve the State of California as its Attorney General, we looked to New Jersey for inspiration to change our laws. At that time, if you were a sex offender convicted of a sex offense and you had served your time, even though that was public information, it was almost impossible for the public at large to know who you were and where you were living. So we decided to follow the New Jersey law in California and adopt Megan's Law, which gave information more readily accessible to the public about where these predators live. It has worked enormously well.

The claims of those who thought we would somehow deprive those who had served their time of their privacy rights, or that we would somehow instill the seeds of vigilantism, have been proven wrong. It has worked very, very effectively.

Since that time we have adopted laws such as Jessica's Laws, which says that those who are registered sex offenders cannot live near children, they cannot live near schools where children go, they cannot live close to the parks where they may play. And that has worked well.

So some of these sex offenders have decided that they will ply their vicious trade, so to speak, beyond our shores. And those are the ones that this International Megan's Law directs its attention to. No longer will they have the mask of anonymity when they go looking for children to exploit in foreign countries.

This is a simple law. It is a law based on information. It is a law based on the knowledge of those who have already committed and are likely to recommit. It makes eminent sense. We hope there will be a unanimous vote in favor of International Megan's Law.

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

Mr. Speaker, as was stated by the chairman of our committee, this is a sensible bill to improve administrative operations at the Library of Congress, and I'm pleased to support it.

The bill improves operations at the Library of Congress related to surplus or obsolete property, the student loan repayment program, and the workers' compensation payment program. These are reasonable and sound changes. We discussed them at our committee markup. I support them.

I thank my colleague and the staff for their hard work, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5681.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution providing for administrative provisions affecting the House.

This resolution simply authorizes that any Active Duty member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to a congressional liaison office in the House of Representatives may obtain membership and access to the House staff fitness center. Given the sacrifices demonstrated by the members of our military each and every day, and their requirement to stay in good physical condition, this is entirely appropriate.

The resolution also establishes, as was mentioned by our chairman, a revolving fund for the House Child Care Center, and it codifies current practices relating to the CAO's allocation, care, and repair of furniture for use in the House.

These are all commonsense and appropriate changes, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5682.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this bill. Anybody who has spoken with or in any way had an opportunity to meet with those who have been the victims of stalkers understands the terrible emotional impact that this illegal activity can have. Oftentimes, it is an act precedent to actual physical harm; but even when actual physical harm is not done, the emotional toll is, in fact, real and extensive.

This bill, I think, furthers the interest that we have in the Federal anti-stalking law, but at the same time I do register my reservation about the manner in which it was brought forward without full consultation with those of us on this side of the aisle on the committee.

Nonetheless, it's a good idea. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I hope it gets unanimous support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5827 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 because the bill does recognize that an individual's Second Amendment right to lawful self-defense is not suspended during periods of financial hardship.

The Second Amendment confirms the right of every American to keep and bear arms in self-defense. Neither Federal nor any State legislature is permitted to enact a law infringing on this most basic right. In 2008, the Supreme Court confirmed in its Heller decision that ``There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.''

This fundamental right to defend oneself and one's family with lawful and responsible gun ownership was reinforced just this year when, in McDonald, the court prohibited State and local legislatures from passing laws infringing on an individual's Second Amendment rights.

Following passage of this bill, gun owners will be protected against overreaching legislatures but also from the harsh realities of the current economic crisis. Americans need not be reminded that our Nation is still mired in some of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. In my home State of California, bankruptcy filings in the first quarter of 2010 have increased approximately 41 percent over the first quarter of 2009.

The bill we're considering today, recognizing that constitutional rights do not halt in the face of financial difficulty, creates a new Federal exemption that places a personal firearm beyond the reach of creditors and allows the debtor to avoid liens on the firearm if they would otherwise prohibit him from taking the new exemption.

The Bankruptcy Code already exempts a variety of other basic items like linens and household goods that a debtor needs during a bankruptcy case to live a modest life and reorganize his or her financial affairs. The bill confirms that a debtor can maintain his or her own safety while the bankruptcy case is pending. The Federal bankruptcy exemption we are creating today is consistent with the principles embodied in the Second Amendment.

I would urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill.

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

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.

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. Speaker, at this time I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, and I would like to address changes made to section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act that concern Public Law No. 83-280, commonly known as Public Law 280. This law was enacted on August 15, 1953, and Public Law 280 removed the Federal Government's special Indian country law enforcement jurisdiction over almost all Indian lands in the States of Alaska upon statehood, my home State of California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, and permitted these States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over those lands.

The act specifically provides that these States ``shall have jurisdiction over offenses committed by or against Indians in the areas of Indian country . . . to the same extent that such State . . . has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State . . . and the criminal laws of such State . . . shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country as they have elsewhere within the State.''

Section 201 of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 allows the Federal Government to reassume criminal jurisdiction on Public Law 280 lands when the affected Indian tribe requests the U.S. Attorney General to do so. If the Attorney General concurs, the United States will reassume jurisdiction to prosecute violations of the General and Major Crimes Acts, sections 1152 and 1153 of title 18, that occur on the requesting tribe's reservation. The

bill makes clear that once the United States assumes jurisdictions pursuant to this provision, criminal authority on the affected reservation will be concurrent among the Federal and State governments and, ``where applicable,'' tribal governments.

I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, to make clear that nothing in the Tribal Law and Order Act retracts jurisdiction from the State governments and nothing in the act will grant criminal jurisdiction in Indian country to an Indian tribe that does not currently have criminal jurisdiction over such land.

I would yield to the chairman for that.

I thank the chairman for that.

I concur with the interpretation of the provision expressed by him, and I would like to thank him for his clarification regarding the intent of the language in section 201 of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, although I intend to support this legislation, the process under which the bill has been brought up can only be described as stranger than fiction. While it might have been appropriate to consider under suspension an act to protect Indian arts crafts, the guts of that bill have been replaced with language that dramatically affect the criminal justice system on tribal lands.

The House Judiciary Committee on which I serve had no markup, either in subcommittee or at full committee, and although we did have a subcommittee hearing on a different bill, H.R. 1924, which I attended in full and found most interesting and helpful, we did not work our will on the legislation.

Why am I concerned about that? Because there are some very specific parts of Indian law as it incorporates State law in PL-280 States that, frankly, are not fully addressed in this bill. Among other things, it is likely we will need to address the adequacy of the training standards in the bill which are less rigorous than the Police Officer Standards and Training Commission standards in my own State. As the former chairman of that commission, I realize the seriousness of the training requirements of law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, that is not addressed in this bill.

Secondly, there is a concern expressed by law enforcement officials in my State about the adequacy of protection of information. Under current law, under the CLETS system, the California law enforcement system dealing with criminal justice information, it is not currently available to tribal authorities because of the lack of training and of a concern about liability. As this now will be made available through the national system with the Federal Government's work, the question of liability if there is misuse of that information remains, and local law enforcement in my State of California have informed me of their continuing concern on this.

That is not enough for me to oppose this bill because I think the essentials of this bill are necessary for us to help protect those in Indian lands. But, Mr. Speaker, the nature of Indian land is very different in different States. Some States have very, very large reservations and very few tribes, with very large populations in those tribes. California has, by and large, very small geographic reservations and other properties that are sovereign territory of the Indians involved. We have relatively small bands, but large numbers of them. So we have a different set of circumstances with which we have to deal. I had hoped that we would be able to work legislation that would acknowledge that difference, but unfortunately that did not happen here.

I will support this bill, but it is unfortunate that true concerns expressed by law enforcement in PL-280 States and other areas of the country were not taken into consideration here, and I hope we will have a chance in the future to amend this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the polls show that the Democrats are in trouble, because every time that happens, Social Security is pulled out of their back pocket. Republicans are going to destroy Social Security. This party is the only party to save Social Security.

Democrats must be behind in the polls because they are pulling out George W. Bush. I have looked all over this campus. I can't find him. I went down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He left. Maybe you folks didn't notice.

President Obama is there. And what a real shame it is that current Democrats are running away from the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy. He told us, forget about class warfare; a rising tide lifts all boats.

Maybe you ought to listen to some of those on your side who didn't talk about fear but talked about hope.