49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–250 

SECURING AIRCRAFT COCKPITS AGAINST LASERS 

ACT OF 2005 

OCTOBER 18, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1400] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1400) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with 

an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 3 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 3 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 3 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 3 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 5 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 5 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 5 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 6 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

2 

1Statement of Nicholas A. Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, on Recent Laser Incidents and the Potential 

Impact on Aviation Safety. March 15, 2005. 2 Julie Bisbee, ‘‘Transportation Secretary steps up efforts to combat lasers being beamed at 

planes,’’ Associated Press, January 13, 2005. 3 Van B. Nakagawara and Ronald W. Montgomery, ‘‘Laser Pointers: Their Potential Affects 

on Vision and Aviation Safety,’’ DOT/FAA/AM-01/7, April 2001. 4 Bill Gertz, ‘‘Laser Injures Delta Pilot’s Eye,’’ The Washington Times, September 29, 2004. 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 

2005’’. 

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER AT AN AIRCRAFT. 

(a) OFFENSE.—Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft 

‘‘Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special 

aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft, 

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’’. 

(b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections at the beginning 

of chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

following new item: 

‘‘39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.’’. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

On March 17, 2005, Rep. Keller (R-FL) introduced H.R. 1400, the 

‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005,’’ to address 

the growing problem of individuals intentionally aiming lasers at 

the cockpits of aircraft, particularly at the critical stages of takeoff and landing. This practice constitutes a threat to aviation security and passenger safety. H.R. 1400 adds a section following 18 

USC § 38 to impose criminal penalties upon any individual who 

knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. The criminal penalties include fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Over the past several years, the number of reports to the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) detailing the aiming of lasers into 

airplane cockpits has dramatically increased. Since 1990, there 

have been over 400 of these incidents and more than 100 incidents 

have been reported since November 2004.1 Between December 31, 

2004 and January 11, 2005, a mere 12 days, the FAA reported the 

occurrence of 31 incidents of beaming a laser at an airplane cockpit.2 FAA research has shown that laser illuminations can temporarily disorient or disable a pilot during critical stages of flight 

such as landing or take-off, and in some cases, may cause permanent physical injury to the pilot.3 In fact, a laser aimed into an airplane flying over Salt Lake City last year injured the eye of one 

of the plane’s pilots.4 This type of interference, whether an intentional effort to sabotage a plane or a prank should not be tolerated 

because of the potential for catastrophe. H.R. 1400 responds to this 

threat by enhancing criminal penalties for those who aim lasers at 

aircraft. The legislation defers to the definition of aircraft under 18 

USC § 31(a)(1). 

On March 15, 2005, The Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing entiVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:39 Oct 18, 2005 Jkt 49006 PO 00000 Frm 000002 Fmt 06659 Sfmt 06601 E:\HR\OC\HR250.XXX HR250
3 

5Statement of Nicholas Sabatini, Supra. 

6Statement of Captain Terry McVenes, Executive Air Safety Chairman, Air Line Pilots Association, Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

U.S. House of Representatives, on Recent Laser Incidents and the Potential Impact on Aviation 

Safety. March 15, 2005. 

tled: ‘‘Lasers: A Hazard to Aviation Safety and Security?’’ The Subcommittee on Aviation heard testimony from: Mr. Perry Winder, 

First Officer, Delta Airlines; Mr. Nicholas Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, FAA; Mr. Randall Walden, Technical Director, U.S. Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office; and Captain Terry McVenes, Executive Air Safety Chairman, Air Line Pilots Association. The witnesses expressed FAA and pilot concerns 

that the growing number of laser incidents poses a threat to aviation safety. Mr. Sabatini testified that as of January 19, 2005, all 

pilots have been required to report any laser sightings to air traffic 

control, who are then required to notify appropriate law enforcement entities for investigation.5 Captain McVenes recommended a 

commitment from law enforcement to fully investigate and prosecute those who intentionally illuminate aircraft cockpits with lasers.6

HEARINGS

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 1400, 

the ‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005.’’ 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 29, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 

open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1400 to 

the House with an amendment by a voice vote, a quorum being 

present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the Committee consideration of H.R. 1400. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill H.R. 1400, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

4 

by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, October 7, 2005. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1400, the Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1400—Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1400 would have no significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any 

such effects would not be significant. H.R. 1400 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of 

State, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 1400 would establish a new Federal crime for aiming the 

beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft or at the aircraft’s flight 

path. Because the bill would establish a new offense, the government would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise would not be 

able to prosecute. We expect that H.R. 1400 would apply to a relatively small number of offenders, however, so any increase in costs 

for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would 

not be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. 

Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1400 could 

be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government might collect 

additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, then deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and 

later spent. CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct 

spending would not be significant because of the small number of 

cases likely to be affected. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. This estimate was approved by Peter 

H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 1400 is intended 

to deter and punish individuals who knowingly shine the beam of 

5 

a laser pointer at an aircraft by providing criminal penalties and 

fines. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in art. I, § 8, cl. 3 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following section-by-section analysis describes the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

This section provides that the Act may be cited as ‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005.’’ 

Sec. 2. Prohibition against aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft. 

This section makes it a crime to knowingly aim the beam of a 

laser pointer at an aircraft and provides criminal penalties of fines 

and up to five years in prison. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 2—AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES 

Sec. 

31. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 39. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft 

Whoever knowingly aims the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at 

the flight path of such an aircraft, shall be fined under this title or 

imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. 

* * * * * * * 

6 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will come to order. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Finally, pursuant to notice, I now 

call up the bill H.R. 1400, the ‘‘Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against 

Lasers Act’’ for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. Without objection the bill will be considered as read, and open for amendment at any point. 

The Chair recognizes the sponsor of the bill, for 5 minutes, briefly to explain it. 

[The bill, H.R. 1400, follows:] 

7 


I1400A1.eps
8 


I1400A2.eps
9 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, aiming 

a laser beam into the cockpit of an airplane is a clear and present 

danger to the safety of all those on board the aircraft. 

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It makes it illegal 

to knowingly aim a laser pointer at an aircraft. Those who intentionally engage in such misconduct shall be fined or imprisoned not 

more than 5 years, or both, in the discretion of the judge. 

A recent rash of incidents involving lasers aimed at aircraft cockpits have raised concerns by pilots and law enforcement officials 

over the potential threat to aviation safety and security. 

The problem is more widespread than one might think. According to the Congressional Research Service and the Federal Aviation 

Administration, there have been over 400 incidents reported since 

1990, where pilots have been disoriented or temporarily blinded by 

laser exposure. Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic increase 

in the number of these laser incidents recently. For example, in 

January the FBI reported that there had been 8 incidents over a 

10-day period in Ohio, Texas, Oregon and New Jersey, where laser 

beams had been aimed at the cockpits of aircraft. These easily 

available pen-size laser pointers, like the one I purchased here for 

$12 at the House of Representatives office supply store, have 

enough power to cause vision problems in pilots from a distance of 

two miles away. It is only a matter of time before one of these laser 

beam pranksters ends up killing over 200 people in a commercial 

airline crash. 

On March 10, the captain of a major commercial airliner was 

struck by a green laser as his jet was about to land at the DallasFt. Worth International Airport. He was temporarily blinded, disoriented and suffered blurred vision in one eye, which required the 

first officer to take over and land the aircraft for him. 

I wanted to learn what it was like to be in a aircraft cockpit hit 

by a laser beam, so earlier this week, on Tuesday, September 27, 

I spoke with Lieutenant Barry Smith from my hometown of Orlando, Florida, who was actually in the cockpit of a helicopter that 

had been hit by a laser beam. Lieutenant Smith is with the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. He and his partner were in their police 

helicopter searching for burglary suspects at night in a suburb of 

Orlando, when a red laser beam hit the aircraft twice. Lieutenant 

Smith said the plexiglas windshield of the helicopter spread out the 

light to be the size of a basketball. It shocked them. They were flying near a large tower with a red light, and they mistakenly 

thought that they may have flown too close to the tower and were 

about to crash. They were disoriented, and they immediately jerked 

back the helicopter. 

When they realized that they weren’t actually near the tower, 

Lieutenant Smith began to worry that the light could have come 

from a laser sight on a rifle. He wondered if they were about to 

be shot out of the sky. He told me, quote, ‘‘It scared the heck out 

of us.’’ In reality, it was just a 31-year-old man with a small pen 

size laser light standing in his back yard. 

So far none of the more than 400 incidents involving flight crew 

exposure to lasers have been linked to terrorism. Rather, it’s often 

a case of pranksters making stupid choices to put pilots and their 

passengers at risk of dying. It’s imperative that we send a message 

10 

to the public that flight security is a serious issue. These acts of 

mischief will not be tolerated. 

Currently a handful of State legislatures, including Florida, are 

taking steps to address this matter. For example, on June 8, 2005, 

Governor Jeb Bush of Florida signed into law a bill making it illegal for any person to focus the beam of a laser lighting device at 

a aircraft. However, Federal legislation is needed because aircrafts 

cross State lines and airports such as Ronald Reagan National Airport are located near State boundaries. 

Surprisingly, there is currently no Federal statute on the books 

making it illegal to shine a laser beam into an aircraft’s cockpit unless one attempts to use the PATRIOT Act to claim that the action 

was a, quote, ‘‘terrorist attack or other attack of violence against 

a mass transportation system,’’ close quote. 

Earlier this month, on September 15, 2005, a Federal judge in 

Newark, New Jersey upheld using the PATRIOT Act to prosecute 

a New Jersey man accused of shining a hand-held laser at two aircrafts back in December 2004. The defense attorneys for the defendant, Mr. David Banach, argued that the PATRIOT Act was 

supposed to be used against terrorists. The Federal prosecutors acknowledged that Mr. Banach is not a terrorist, but they said they 

had no other choice but to use the PATRIOT Act since no other 

Federal law applied. 

Clearly, this legislation before us is needed to ensure the safety 

of pilots and passengers in all situations. I urge my colleagues to 

vote yes on the legislation and yes on the clarifying amendment offered by Bobby Scott and myself, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1400 and urge my colleagues to support it, although I have some concern that when the bill is actually applied 

it may involve some misguided youth fooling around with a laser 

beam. I realize that the conduct the bill prohibits can be extremely 

dangerous, not only for the pilot but also for the airline passengers 

as well. 

Perhaps the most appropriate Committee jurisdiction should consider—perhaps the appropriate Committee of jurisdiction should 

consider requiring strong notices and warnings on laser beam products after this bill is passed, to put people on notice as a further 

precautionary step, but I think this bill is the appropriate step for 

this Committee. 

Under the bill the Sentencing Commission and the courts will 

apply the appropriate punishments to violators based on the facts 

and circumstances of the case, rather than Congress sentencing offenders with mandatory minimums based on the name of the crime 

without regard for the circumstances. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with all the mandatory minimums we’re seeing in crime bills before these Committees, I am pleased to have 

the opportunity to support a bill that does not have any. I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’ 

opening statements may be placed in the record at this point. 

11 

Are there amendments? The gentleman from New York. The gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1400, offered by Mr. Keller of 

Florida and Mr. Scott of Virginia. Page 2, line 2, insert ‘‘the beam 

of’’ before ‘‘laser pointer.’’ 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. 

[The amendment of Mr. Keller and Mr. Scott follows:] 

12 


A1400.eps
13 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is a 

simple clarification indicating that it is illegal to aim the beam of 

the laser pointer at an aircraft, rather than just the pointer itself. 

I urge my colleagues to vote yet to this amendment offered by Mr. 

Scott and myself and yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller. 

Those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from New York? 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we are drafting an amendment. I 

don’t know if it will be ready in time, but I would like to ask the 

sponsor—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman strike the last 

word? 

Mr. NADLER. Yes, strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Keller, it occurs to me—I mean this is an excellent bill and I certainly support it. It occurs to me that it is a danger not only to point a laser at an aircraft cockpit, it’s also a danger 

to point a laser at a truck cabin if someone’s driving an 18-wheeler 

down the road, or for that matter an automobile. You point a laser 

at somebody, the driver, you can cause an accident, and I wonder 

why we don’t amend this bill to say that it’s a crime not only to 

point it at an aircraft cabin, but also at a truck or car driver? 

Assuming we get the amendment drafted in time in the next couple of minutes—in fact here it is. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman from New York 

yield? 

Mr. NADLER. Yes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I think the gentleman has a good 

idea. I’d like to make sure that the amendment is properly drafted 

because the section of the statute that the bill proposes to amend 

relates to aviation sabotage, and if we have something relating not 

to aircraft there it might be a little difficult to find. I’ll be happy 

to work with the gentleman from New York between now and the 

time we go to the floor. My guess is that this is a good candidate 

for the suspension calendar, so we can put something that might 

not even be germane on this bill to deal with the issue, if the gentleman will forbear? 

Mr. KELLER. If the gentleman will yield, I’d like to address your 

concerns. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, yes, I’ll yield. 

Mr. KELLER. I agree with the Chairman, and I’d be happy to 

work with you. In fact, when I look at the language—which I may 

be able to give you some language—the Florida statute which I 

mentioned was already signed into law—says any person who 

knowingly and willfully shines, points or focuses the beam of a 

laser lighting device on an individual operating a motor vehicle, 

vessel or aircraft, and so I certainly think that’s a reasonable request. 

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the comments of 

the Chairman and the gentleman, and I will be happy not to offer 

14 

this amendment now and to work with you to get this into the bill 

in the proper form. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentleman yield back? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much, and this 

may be a question to the proponent of the legislation. I do join in 

the inquiry as to whether this had been submitted to Subcommittee, but I notice that the term is ‘‘laser pointer,’’ and I’ve 

asked—I’m concerned about the vagueness of the words without 

specific definition. May I yield to the proponent, and just ask has 

he done sufficient research that he thinks this laser pointer is sufficiently narrow, definitively narrow to be able to not, if you will, undermine due process without knowledge of what one might be 

charged of in this particular legislation. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you for yielding, and, yes, I am aware of the 

term. The term ‘‘laser’’ means any device that is designed or used 

to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission. If you 

feel a definition, that that is helpful to people, I don’t have a problem of working with you just like we will with Mr. Nadler. That’s 

how it was defined in the Florida statute, but that’s the definition 

of it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, then I welcome that. I’d like to work 

with you. I don’t want to prolong this. I see that your amendment 

offered ‘‘the beam of’’ and I’m thinking of flashlights—I don’t want 

to pursue it—and other children’s toys, and certainly I don’t want 

to suggest that we don’t want to protect pilots and/or truck drivers, 

but it seems somewhat vague and I think it would be appropriate 

that we look at this more closely. Are we expecting this to be on 

the floor next week? 

Mr. KELLER. I can’t answer that. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman will yield, the 

answer is no. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then, Mr. Chairman, thank you. With that in 

mind, let me then say, Mr. Keller, I would like to work with you 

on that. I’m a little concerned about the expansion of the definition, 

though I think this is a good bill. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If there are no amendments, a reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 1400 favorably as amended. All in favor will say 

aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion to report favorably is agreed to. without objection the bill will be reported to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here 

today. 

Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by the House rules in which to submit additional dissenting, 

supplemental or minority views. 

The Chair will announce that the remaining bill on the calendar, 

the Court Security Bill, will not be considered today because we are 

15 

going to be facing votes shortly, and it’s the Chair’s desire to wrap 

this up so that we don’t have to come back sometime later midstream in the Court Security bill. 

Also before adjourning the Committee, the Chair would like to 

remind Members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution to stick 

around for their markup scheduled to take place immediately following completion of the full Committee business. 

If there is no further business to be brought before the Committee, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ