Date: 2010-07-27
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. 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 todays 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 optout 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 wont 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. Thats 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.