[House Report 109-250]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



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:

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:

``Sec. 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 take-off and landing. This practice 
constitutes a threat to aviation security and passenger safety. 
H.R. 1400 adds a section following 18 USC Sec. 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 Sec. 31(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Statement 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 15, 2005, The Subcommittee on Aviation of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing 
entitled: ``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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Statement of Nicholas Sabatini, Supra.
    \6\ Statement 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                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 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 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, Sec. 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.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           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:]
    
    
    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 
Dallas-Ft. 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 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.
    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:]
    
    
    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 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 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.]

                                  
