[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 28 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1370-H1371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SECURING AIRCRAFT COCKPITS AGAINST LASERS ACT OF 2011
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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 386
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Aircraft Cockpits
Against Lasers Act of 2011''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST AIMING A LASER POINTER AT AN
AIRCRAFT.
(a) Offense.--Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 39 the following:
``Sec. 39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft
``(a) 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) As used in this section, the term `laser pointer'
means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic
radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed
to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to
indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item,
or object.
``(c) This section does not prohibit aiming a beam of a
laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an
aircraft, by--
``(1) an authorized individual in the conduct of research
and development or flight test operations conducted by an
aircraft manufacturer, the Federal Aviation Administration,
or any other person authorized by the Federal Aviation
Administration to conduct such research and development or
flight test operations;
``(2) members or elements of the Department of Defense or
Department of Homeland Security acting in an official
capacity for the purpose of research, development,
operations, testing or training; or
``(3) by an individual using a laser emergency signaling
device to send an emergency distress signal.
``(d) The Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, may provide by regulation, after
public notice and comment, such additional exceptions to this
section, as may be necessary and appropriate. The Attorney
General shall provide written notification of any proposed
regulations under this section to the Committees on the
Judiciary of the House and Senate, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure in the House, and the
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in the
Senate not less than 90 days before such regulations become
final.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 39
the following new item:
``39A. Aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft.''.
SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH PAYGO.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives, provided that such statement has been
submitted prior to the vote on passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
{time} 1420
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. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 386.
This bill establishes criminal penalties for knowingly aiming a laser
pointer at an aircraft or in its flight path. Incidents involving
lasers aimed at aircraft have raised concerns over the potential threat
to aviation safety and national security.
Some are concerned that terrorists might use high-powered lasers to,
among other things, incapacitate pilots. There is also concern that
laser devices can distract or temporarily incapacitate pilots during
critical phases of flight.
Lasers pose a safety hazard to flight operations. Even a brief
exposure to a relatively low-powered laser beam can cause discomfort
and temporary visual impairment. The visual distractions of a laser can
cause a pilot to become disoriented or to lose situational awareness
while flying. Higher powered laser
[[Page H1371]]
devices can incapacitate pilots and inflict eye injuries when viewed at
closer ranges.
In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board documented two
cases in which pilots sustained eye injuries and were incapacitated
during critical phases of flight. In one of these cases, after a laser
was pointed at the pilot's plane, he experienced a burning sensation
and tearing in his eyes. A subsequent eye examination revealed multiple
flash burns in the pilot's cornea.
These types of incidents happen more and more each year. There were
over 2,800 reported incidents of this happening last year, more than
double the number of reported incidents from the previous year. Because
this is a documented and growing problem and because of the Federal
interest in maintaining the safety of our airspace, this bill,
unfortunately, is necessary.
I commend the gentleman from California, Representative Dan Lungren,
for his work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 386, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________