Daniel Lungren

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this worthy amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it is essential to those of us who have been elected to serve in this body to have confidence that the interests of the constituents are being served. The democratic process as well as the integrity of the people's House require no less. As the Supreme Court recognized in Buckley v. Valeo, it is both corruption and even the appearance of corruption which threaten the public trust and warrant congressional regulatory action. The safeguards contained in this amendment will protect the integrity of the process by allowing private travel which has nothing to do with corruption and which in fact contributes to our ability to effectively represent those who have elected us. This bipartisan compromise provides that the Ethics Committee shall have until June 15 of this year to develop a permanent plan governing future private travel. In the interim, private travel would be allowed if, after its review, two-thirds of the Ethics Committee approves the trip. That requires bipartisan approval. Our amendment will protect legitimate travel which relates to our ability as Members of this body, and I ask for support of this amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is one of those bipartisan moments in our consideration of a lobbying reform bill. Congressman George Miller, Congressman Howard Berman, Tom Cole, Doc Hastings have joined me as cosponsors of this amendment, and Congressman Jeff Flake worked with us in crafting this proposal. Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, I would ask unanimous consent that his name be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I was in this body for 10 years and then out for 16. I have had a chance to look at the importance of travel as it adds to the information base that Members have. While we have had problems in certain areas of travel, we ought not to just throw them all out. This is a real effort to try and get transparency and to work on a bipartisan basis to make sure this works.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was absent from this House for 16 years, and I came back longing for some familiarity, but also hoping for some change. But as Yogi Berra said, when we have these budget debates, it is deja vu all over again. The same words I heard 18 years ago from the other side of the aisle still prevail: ``weaken,'' ``starve,'' ``slash,'' ``stab,'' ``kill,'' ``attack,'' ``assault,'' ``inflict pain.'' So I looked at the budget to see how much less it is than when I left here 18 years ago. It is so much larger now it is unbelievable. When we had the head of the OMB, now soon to be the new chief of staff at the White House, appear before us, he said that if we do not start to control entitlements, mandatory spending, by the time my children are ready to retire, we will have no ability, he said, to spend anything on discretionary spending including the military. Think of that. We have come to a position now where the burgeoning of the entitlement programs is such that in another generation what the Constitution calls our first obligation, common defense, we will have no money for it. Now, how can this budget be so terrible? How can it be stifling? When I left here before, if we had just frozen spending for a year, receipts would have caught up with spending. Now we are in a position that it would take 3 years of a freeze to catch up. This budget is not slashing, cutting. We are doing a little bit of trimming. Many Americans do not think we are doing enough. And the whole idea on the other side is all we have to do is tax more. Look at what these tax policies have given us. We have a robust economy. We have lower unemployment rates. Our rates of unemployment now are below what economists told us when I was here before we could ever sustain. They talked about 6 percent unemployment being full employment. Now we are below 5 percent. We should not sacrifice jobs on the mantra of increasing taxes, as my friends on the other side would have us believe.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, while serving as California's attorney general, I was privileged to be appointed by President George H.W. Bush to be a commissioner on the President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws. This was a congressionally established commission that was charged with creating a model code of laws to help States effectively address alcohol and other drug abuse. This commission conducted a thorough process which included five public hearings, 25 working sessions, travels around the country for that purpose, and input from hundreds of individuals and organizations working at the State and local levels, to address substance abuse. The result of that commission was 44 model drug laws and policies which offered a comprehensive continuum of responses and services to address substance abuse problems. We had people from various disciplines in the mental health arena, in the law enforcement arena, in the educational arena, in the social services arena, all coming together to see whether or not they could come up with a continuum of responses to this terrible problem. Since fiscal year 1995, Congress has provided funding for a nonprofit entity to advise States on laws and policies to address alcohol and other drug issues using as its base the model acts crafted by the President's Commission on Model State Drug Laws, to revise these model State drug laws and to draft supplementary model acts to meet changes in State substance abuse problems. They actually work with the States. They work with local governments to come up with these comprehensive approaches. Having these services available to the States has been an enormous asset in combating substance abuse as States introduce and pass newer enhanced drug laws, create new guidelines and policies, coordinate funding streams to use resources effectively and efficiently and develop or strengthen multidisciplinary partnerships at the State and local level. That is absolutely necessary if we are going to make real progress on this war on drugs and war on other types of substance abuse. Just look at the number of States that addressed methamphetamine-related problems through legislation this past year alone. Many of them benefited from the services I mentioned. Because effective and cost-efficient State drug laws and policies are vital components of a strong national effort to address substance abuse, this amendment is offered to authorize appropriations of $1.5 million for each of the fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to better ensure that these key functions in assisting States are retained in the national drug control effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Tuskegee airmen. They sacrificed for a Nation they loved even when that love was not totally reciprocated. In 1941, the Army Air Force began a program to train African Americans as military pilots. This was an era of segregation, when popular opinion was against training African Americans to become aviators, but the individuals of the Tuskegee experience showed the Nation and the world that they were equals. By overcoming many hardships, they cast aside the myths that had allowed segregation, inequity and injustice to prevail in society. To break barriers, there is often one individual who will pave the way. The catalyst for African American aviation was Charles Alfred ``Chief'' Anderson. When first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, climbed into the back of Anderson's plane in 1941, a new chapter had begun for military aviation in America. His love for flying airplanes began at a young age and throughout his life gave wings to countless African American pilots. In 1943, the Tuskegee airmen tasted combat for the first time. By World War II's end, the German Luftwaffe would know them as the ``Red tailed Devils'' and the American bombing crews would refer to them as the ``Red Tail Angels.'' During the war, the four African American fighter squadrons that made up the 332nd fighter group established their legitimacy with countless victories in the air. They also solidified a legacy of being highly disciplined and capable fighters by flying over 200 escort missions over Germany without ever losing a bomber to enemy fire. For their service they were awarded high honors, including Distinguished Flying Crosses, Legions of Merit, Silver Stars, Purple Hearts, the Croix de Guerre, and the red star of Yugoslavia. A Distinguished Unit Citation was awarded to the 332nd fighter group for ``outstanding performance and extraordinary heroism'' in 1945. The Tuskegee Airmen fought the Axis powers in Europe and racism at home. Their accomplishments spoke louder than words and provided evidence that led to the integration of our Nation's armed forces. It is important that we continue to acknowledge the sacrifices and service of these Americans who performed so admirably. The accomplishments of the brave Tuskegee Airmen will never be forgotten, and may they always remind us of the unlimited power of the human spirit.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, after 9/11, one of the most responsible things that this Congress did was to pass the PATRIOT Act. It tore down that wall that existed between the intelligence community and the law enforcement community, a wall that was specifically talked about in the 9/11 Commission report as one of the failures of our government to prepare for the threats that we had prior to 9/11. What we are doing now is reaffirming that responsible act by this Congress. This today is the final critical piece of the USA PATRIOT Act, reflecting the careful balancing of national security and the civil liberties of our citizens. In total, over 30 changes, additional civil liberty protections, have been made to the base legislation. It reflects the reality that security must not be juxtaposed against the notion of rights. It is absolutely true that the first civil right of all Americans is the right not to be murdered, not to be murdered by terrorists. The three additional changes contained in the bill before us, S. 2271, go beyond the 30 additions that we had in the conference report itself. There are civil liberties protections concerning, first, the ability to challenge the legality of a section 215 order. Section 215 deals with business records, including library records. Secondly, it adds civil liberties protections concerning the protection of the confidentiality of a name of an attorney to whom information has been disclosed. Third, it places limitations concerning the use of national security letters with respect to libraries. These 30-plus changes to the underlying legislation were made despite the fact that in this last year we had 13 separate hearings on the PATRIOT Act; and in those 13 hearings we found not a single, single, incidence of abuse of the law. We placed the Attorney General of the United States under oath. We placed the number two person at the Justice Department under oath. We heard from supporters of this act; we heard from the detractors of this act. We examined the Inspector General's reports. We had the opportunity to look at classified data that backed up the request for the use of this act. I personally did that, as well as other members of the subcommittee and the full committee; and we could not find a single example of an established abuse of the statute as written or as applied. On the basis of the Bali terrorist attacks, the bombing in Spain, the terrible 7/7 incident in London, the threat to the safety and security of our citizens continues. It didn't end with the passage of the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act, as it has been implemented, has allowed us to protect ourselves from future such attacks. We must not now lapse into a pre-9/11 lethargy. Unlike normal criminal investigations, terrorism presents law enforcement with the task of preventing a cataclysmic attack. That is why I rise in support of this bill before us.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2520. The fact of the matter is, I believe all of us would like to support the application of science and technical research to the problems of the day. There are times when we have moral dilemmas, and reference has been made to another bill involving embryonic stem cells which does divide many people in this country because of the ethical dilemma that is presented. That is why it is so wonderful we have come today in support, those who may find themselves on the other side of the dilemma in the other respect, and come in common support for the cord blood stem cell bill. This is both a therapeutic and research bill. It is therapeutic in that it affords the banking of units that will be allowed to help people now, diseases that can be affected by the use of these units now. So much of what we do here is theoretical. We hope that things might be accomplished by what we do. But we know that this will accomplish success right away. Secondly, it allows for research to see how far we can go in this area. It gives the opportunity for this which would otherwise be thrown away, placenta blood and the blood from the cord that is thrown away now on every single day, to be utilized for both research and for life-giving purposes. Mr. Speaker, if I had the ability to, I would change the name of this bill to the Giving Life Twice bill, once with the production of new life and secondly with the use of that blood that otherwise would be thrown away to help someone else sustain their life; or we could call this the Lifeline bill. We are extending a lifeline of hope to those who otherwise would have no hope. This is a joyous day here in this body. People may disagree on other matters, coming together in strong support for a bill that will save lives and save lives now.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to be involved in this bipartisan amendment with my friend from Oregon. The amendment addresses a dangerous flaw in our current system. Under current practices, Customs and Border Protection does not receive the names of passengers on board international flights bound for the U.S. until after the flight is in the air, as the gentleman explained. When CBP finally gets the passenger manifest, it sends it over to the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, so they can compare it against the terrorist databases. At that point, if they find a name match, there is no way to reconcile the situation. This has resulted in numerous high-profile instances where a plane was forced to divert from its intended destination, I believe in almost every case while over the Atlantic. This inconveniences passengers and costs the airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident. There have been, as I understand, seven diversions this year alone. What is worse, since CBP and TSA have been operating this program, there have been two occasions on which the individuals flagged turned out to be the dangerous individuals on the watch list. Fortunately, there is a commercially available system in use for flights to Australia that provides the airlines with a cleared or not cleared decision for each passenger in real-time, not 4 hours before or not 2 hours after they have taken off, but in real-time, at the time of check-in. The system has been offered free of charge to CBP on a pilot basis. They have declined the offer and have yet to conduct any tests. Instead, they have been trying to internally develop a new system for over a year now. I believe we are wasting valuable time. This amendment, at a minimum, will force CBP to conduct a test of the commercially available systems within 90 days of the date of enactment. If CBP can complete the development of its own proprietary system, we will also get a real apples-to-apples comparison of the various products. Ultimately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will speed implementation of this vital program to ensure that the airlines will know who can board the plane safely and who cannot long before the plane leaves the ground. I believe everyone agrees that is the best possible situation. We have, on a bipartisan basis I think, been frustrated by the responses we have received as to why they cannot develop their own program and why they then resist conducting a pilot program utilizing something that has already been done in another country. The only question it seems to me is scaleability: Can they scale up to the volumes we have in the United States because obviously Australia is a smaller country with a smaller number of people? But in this computerized era in which we live today, I do not believe that scaleability is a problem. That is the reason for this pilot project. I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon for his efforts and his willingness to work with me on this language. I would urge all Members to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the references to the Berlin Wall. There is only one problem: The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in, not keep people out. I do not recall in searching my memory a single example of people trying to jump over the Berlin Wall to get into East Germany. This is for a different purpose. It is a different thing, and your suggestion that this is a Berlin Wall is only off by about 180 degrees.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do claim it; although I do not oppose it.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of major provisions in this bill, and let me speak of one that has been referred to on both sides of the aisle, some in support and some not in support. Section 407 which is the expedited removal section, this was adopted in the markup in the Homeland Security Committee. The question of expedited removal was one that we explored in our subcommittee. The specific context of our hearing involved the growing number of illegal border crossings by what is referred to by the service as ``other than Mexicans'' or ``OTMs.'' Let me explain what this is. Most people who come across the border illegally from our adjoining countries, either on the north from Canada or on the south from Mexico, accept voluntary departure. They agree to voluntarily go home and agree that they do not go through the various processes involved. We cannot do that with those people who are not from those countries because neither Mexico nor Canada would accept them. So we have to have an acknowledgment from the country from whence they came, their home country, that they are, in fact, residents of those countries or citizens of those countries. That requires us to detain those people for some period of time. That requires detention space, and the subject that has been discussed before, the idea of catch and release was created as a result of insufficient detention space and insufficient resources dedicated to that proposition. After that was revealed by the press earlier this year, the administration responded by trying out a couple of pilot projects in certain sectors. Instead of catch and release, it was retain them and then have expedited removal. They found that to be successful, and so they have expanded it to the entire southern border. Our bill mandates that not only be a temporary policy but a permanent policy. Yes, it does extend within 100 miles of the border, and it is limited to 14 days. That is, people who have been here less than 14 days, even though the underlying law allows it to be done for a 2-year period of time, it does not limit it to 100 miles from the border. This is a border security bill, and we limit it in that fashion. It is directed at those who have come here. We even had the incident of a large number of people from Brazil this past year coming up, and we found that not only did they come across the border but instead of running away from our immigration officers, they ran to them. They ran to them to surrender, and they ran to them to surrender so they could be cited so they could actually get the citation which said you have entered this country illegally, you have to show up for your hearing 90 days hence. And 90-some percent did not show up. My question is, why did the 6 percent show up? If you look at it, we have created a system with every incentive to come back. That has turned around because of the pilot project. What this bill does is mandates it. It is commonsensical. It is the right thing to do. It helps us take a right step in the right direction.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the primary attributes of a sovereign nation is the ability to control its own borders. In this regard, it is clear that the Constitution, article 1, section 8, places this duty right here, in the Congress. We have thus arrived at that moment of decision where the American people have a legitimate expectation that we will rise to this fundamental responsibility of governance. As one who has had the opportunity to participate in the birthing process of this legislation in both of the committees of primary jurisdiction, I would be the first to acknowledge that this was not an immaculate conception. It remains my belief that a comprehensive approach to the issue is necessary if we are to maximize the effectiveness of our resources on the border. However, it is critical that we have to take a first step. This bill should be judged on the basis of what it does contain, not for what it does not. On its own merits, this is a good bill. It is a good first step towards regaining control of our borders. And, furthermore, we have the assurances of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that other aspects of the larger immigration issue will be considered after our return. The decision has been made to begin the process of reform of the border security bill. Why? Because that is what the American people expect of us. Even if it is not a Rembrandt, it is not a bad paint job. As one who participated in the crafting of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, actually as the Republican floor manager of that bill, I can tell the Members that it was on the issue of employer sanctions that that bill crashed and burn. That legislation made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. It was part of a carefully crafted compromise. It was part of the balance in the program. Little did we know that neither Republican nor Democratic administrations were going to enforce it nor Democratic nor Republican Congresses were going to support it. There is enough blame to go around. It is not just in the Executive branch. It is here in this body as well. And the American people now are demanding that we do something about it. Under the law then passed, employers were to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all new hires. However, the explosion of a new industry dedicated to the production of false and fraudulent documents completely undermined the employer sanctions provision of the bill. It did not have to happen that way. Congressman Hall of Texas offered a verification system somewhat like that contained in the bill before us. However, at that time I did not believe, nor did others in this body, that we had the technology to make it work. However, today, we do. It is incumbent upon us that we must learn from the past and have a reliable system of employment verification if employer sanctions are to work. A workable employment verification system is the critical linchpin in devising a strategy to demagnetize the attraction of unlawful employment. These and other things are in this bill. This is a good first step. Let us not fall on our own swords in an effort to try to say we want a perfect bill. If we do not do this, we will not do anything.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I was absent from this chamber for 16 years after serving for 10. The compelling reason for me to return was the events of 9/11. And one of the things that I thought I would never see in the House of Representatives is an Alice in Wonderland type atmosphere where just because you say something, you think it is true. The fact of the matter is, many of the complaints registered by my friends on the other side of the aisle are taken care of in this conference report. If you vote down the conference report, those sections that are not subject to sunset will continue on without any of the changes that the chairman has articulated. So the very arguments they are making against what they do not like about the law now should compel them to vote for this conference report because we make changes. Madam Speaker, it is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety of its citizens. The PATRIOT Act tears down that wall, that artificial wall that existed between the intelligence community and the criminal justice enterprises. And what we did was we said it made no sense, it made us more vulnerable to attack. Some have said, look, these changes in the PATRIOT Act change what was current law. That is true because there was a need to do so. And some have argued all we need to do is to follow what has been the law in the past. The distinction that must be drawn is that, in the war on terrorism, it is not good enough to collect the evidence after a terrorist attack to try and bring people to justice. The imperative is to stop the terrorist attacks from occurring in the first place. That is why we have the differences in this law. Yes, there is a different standard. The standard is to allow us to stop the terrorist attacks in the first instance. We have, as a result of oversight, and I have attended every single hearing in the subcommittee and full committee, done unbelievable oversight, reviewing every bit of evidence that has been out there. There has not been one single example of abuse proven, not one. The IG report could not find it. We could not find it. I have been to every single hearing that we have had, been with every witness. They could not prove a one. But because we are concerned about the possibility of abuse, we have put at least 30 additional limitations into this conference report. And so really the question is, do you believe in the essential foundation of the PATRIOT Act which makes changes, recognizing that we are trying to stop terrorist attacks before they occur, rather than doing the regular criminal justice activity of collecting evidence after the fact. I am not willing to place my children and grandchildren in jeopardy by defeating this conference report. Introductory Comments It is the primary responsibility of government to protect the safety of its citizens. The PATRIOT Act is a critical element in a strategy to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to conduct antiterrorism investigations. This task is made all the more difficult in that unlike the traditional criminal case, our success will be measured by the ability to prevent a future terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission report observed that ``The choice between security and liberty is a false choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the success of a terrorist attack at home.'' Freedom presumes security. The converse is equally true. In the delicate balance of these important interests. our concern for liberty must not discount the consequences of a failure to keep Americans secure from a cataclysmic event. While it is important to avoid hyperbole on such a serious matter, the very nature of American life-- and the traditional regard for liberty--could itself be threatened. At the same time, it is the solemn responsibility of committees with oversight responsibilitites to be ever diligent to assure that government does not overstep the proper limits of its authority in implementing the PATRIOT Act. In this regard, in our oversight of the PATRIOT Act, the Judiciary Committee conducted 13 hearings and there was no finding of abuse. This was evidenced by the fact that opponents of the act resorted to attacks on the circumstances at Guantanamo, and the Creppy memo--issues related to the wider war on terrorism but unrelated to the PATRIOT Act itself. Comments on Provisions Further Strengthening the PATRIOT Act The conference report contains a number of provisions which maintain the integrity of those key provisions necessary to combat terrorism, while at the same time strengthening the protection of civil liberties: Section 102 (sunset provisions) As the author of the 10-year sunset provisions in the House bill relating to section 206, roving wiretaps, and section 215, access to business records the final language in the conference report responds to the critics of the legislation. The conference report contains the Senate language of 4-year sunsets of these same provisions and extends the sunset language to the ``lone wolf' provisions of the bill as well. Section 106 (215 business records) The conference report language relating to business record access includes additional protections not contained in current law. The conference report explicitly provides for judicial review of any section 215 order. If the documents sought pertain to sensitive categories of records-- such as library, bookstore, tax returns, firearms sales, educational and medical records--the FBI Director, Deputy Director, or the official in charge of intelligence must personally sign off on the application before it can be submitted to the court. The conference report requires that the application to the FISA court must include ``a clear statement of the facts'' that demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought are relevant to the investigation. The conference report requires the use of so-called minimization procedures to regulate the retention and dissemination of information concerning United States persons and the protection of privileged documents. The conference report makes it explicit that a recipient of an order has the right to disclose receipt to an attorney or other parties necessary to comply with the order. Section 108 (206 roving wiretaps) Section 108 of the conference report imposes several additional safeguards on the use of roving surveillance: The conference report requires that the order describe the specific target in detail when authorizing a roving wiretap for a target whose identity is not known. The conference report specifies that the FISA court must find that the possibility of the target thwarting surveillance is based on specific facts in the application. The conference report requires investigators to inform the court when ``roving'' surveillance is used to target a new facility--such as when a terrorist or spy changes to a different cell phone. Section 114 (sec. 213 delayed notice search warrants) As the former chief law enforcement officer of my State of California, I want to first of all emphasize that delayed notice search warrants are not an invention of the PATRIOT Act. The delayed notice search warrant has been available to California law enforcement for years. The conference report adds new safeguards relating to the use of delayed notice search warrants. The conference report places a limit of 30 days on an initial request or on a later date certain if the facts justify such a delay. Extensions of up to 90 days are possible unless the facts of a particular case justify a longer period. Sections 115-119 (national security letters) The language in the conference report provides for explicit judicial review of an NSL. The conference report provides that a recipient of an NSL may challenge any non-disclosure requirement in court. The report clarifies that a recipient may disclose receipt of an NSL to an attorney or other necessary party. Conclusion There is a total absence of any evidence of abuse of the PATRlOT Act. Furthermore, the conference report adds further protections against any potential abuse of the law. The conference report represents a careful balance between our responsibility to protect Americans from terrorist violence, and our responsibility to avoid any potential violations of their civil liberties. The enactment of this legislation is critical to this endeavor. There are those who will attempt to come here for the sole purpose of murdering innocent Americans. It is our responsibility to keep this from happening. We must provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to carry out this task.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in brief comment about a former Member of this House who passed away this week, Carroll Campbell. As one who came to this House with Carroll Campbell in January of 1979, I would say that if you were to draw a blueprint for an outstanding Member of Congress, you could do no better than to look to Carroll Campbell. Carroll Campbell served tremendously as the governor of his home State of South Carolina, but before that, served with great honor and distinction in this House. Mr. Speaker, I can say that he was a man of great integrity. He was one that you admired in every aspect. I can recall him being the first Member from my side of the aisle south of the Mason-Dixon line who came out in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act. He provided leadership in so many areas, whether tax policy, national defense or otherwise. Carroll Campbell was a champion. Carroll Campbell left us far too soon, and we send our words, our good wishes, and our hopes with his wife and his children. This House is a greater place because of the service rendered to this House by Carroll Campbell.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, Veterans Day is a special day we set aside to honor all of our brave service men and women both past and present. It is a day to remember, a day to honor and a day to reflect upon our fellow citizens who, risking their lives, were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It is a day to honor those we know and those we have never met. It is my privilege to honor one of our veterans in the Third Congressional District of California, Ernest C. Ford. Mr. Ford's story was brought to my attention some months ago. Like many of my fellow colleagues in Congress, we represent our constituents and are honored to have veterans among them. It is their story that humanizes the importance of Veterans Day. In May of 1927, Charles Lindbergh took off from Roosevelt Field, Long Island, New York and flew into aviation history and into the imagination of a 5\1/2\ year old boy, ``Ernie'' Ford. With the onset of World War II, the young farm boy from Dodge City, Kansas left his family and friends to join a cause larger than himself. Fifteen years later to the day of Lindbergh's faithful flight, Staff Sergeant Ernest C. Ford graduated from advanced flying school at Luke Field in Phoenix, Arizona. Like many, in what has been referred to as the greatest generation, he served with honor and distinction to preserve Liberty and Freedom throughout the world. Flying over 6,500 hours and 364 combat missions, the most of any pilot in the USAAF during World War II, he showed his dedication to duty, honor and country. On February 6, 1943, Staff Sergeant Ernie Ford, a transport pilot, is credited with saving three C-47 planes, their crews, and 87 Australian infantry during the battle of Wau in New Guinea, Australia. While the battle raged around him, Mr. Ford proceeded to takeoff on a bombed out airstrip while under enemy fire. Witnessing his lead plane shot down on ascent, he decided to keep his plane low for maximum speed. With the plane only 10 to 15 feet off the ground, Ernie Ford escaped the fate of his comrades before him and showed the remaining C-47's a way to escape the battle. For his exceptional service, he won a battlefield commission and was promoted to the rank of 2nd lieutenant. At the end of the war in the Pacific, Mr. Ford earned 6 Distinguished Flying Crosses, one garnering a V for valor, 2 Air Medals, and was recommended for our nation's third highest military honor, the Silver Star for his actions at Wau. Along with personal recognition, his squadron received three Presidential Unit Citations and two Battle Stars. Following World War II, he helped stem the tide of communism during the Korean Conflict by flying 21 combat missions. After 23 years of service, Mr. Ford eventually retired with the rank of Major with over 15 decorations. The gratitude that all Americans owe to Mr. Ford cannot be expressed in mere words alone. I will tell you everyday that I go to work; I am reminded of our veterans and the sacrifices they made by the sight of the many beautiful memorials erected in their memory. These memorials represent the dogged determination of our veterans and are a reminder of the heartfelt gratitude all Americans owe them for their service. As President Ronald Reagan on the 40th anniversary of D-Day said, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.'' I thank you, Mr. Ford, and all our honored American Veterans for your service to our country.

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen a tragedy of tragedies this past week. We are here as representatives of the American people to attempt to try and ensure that the proper governmental response is possible, and it is not a time for recrimination or finger-pointing. As a matter of fact, I would like to draw the attention to the superb job that has been done by the Coast Guard. I have not heard one suggestion of criticism of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, which has in our Nation's history a unique status of being both a civilian operation and a military operation, often is left in the shadows as we look to the other military establishments in this country. But the remarkable job done by the Coast Guard, particularly the work done by the helicopter pilots and those who are working with the pilots to rescue hundreds and literally thousands of people in the affected area, is something of which we should be proud, something of which we should be joyous; and it suggests to me that we should take another look at the way in which we have taken for granted the tremendous efforts made by the Coast Guard. As we look forward in analyzing what occurred and what is occurring now, we ensure that as we make plans for the future, we equip the Coast Guard with everything that the Coast Guard needs to be able to carry out its functions, the traditional function which we have seen over the past week, and the new responsibility we have given them in the war on terrorism. But, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss as someone who spent 8 years as the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California if I did not remark on what I observed with the breakdown in order that we saw in the city of New Orleans. Quite simply, when we have a situation in which law enforcement stands by and allows looting to take place with the excuse that it is only for food and water, one should understand that if we say looting is okay for food and water, we will ensure that only the strong get the food and the water and the weak will not. It was not the weak that were breaking into those places and taking that home; it was, rather, those who were healthy and those who were able to go in and do that, and I doubt that they were running back to assist those who were far less fortunate. When you suggest that that breakdown in order is allowable, what you do is suggest to the criminal community that they can do more, and we saw the spiraling from food and water to clothes, to appliances, and finally to guns and ammunition; and we saw terrible tragedy that ensued that was man-made, not as the result of the terrible forces of the hurricane and the terrible forces of the flooding that took place thereafter, but rather those who would take advantage of that tragedy for their own purposes. My only suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that it ought to be a lesson for all of us, all of us, that when we are confronted with tragedies of this sort, whether they are man-made or natural, we must understand the importance of order being maintained. While some may believe it is in a sense of generosity or a sense of empathy to say that looting is okay for selected purposes, we should understand that ultimately it does the greatest damage to those who need our help the most, the least among us, the weakest among us, those who cannot fend for themselves. So as we sort things out and as we in this Congress look for those things that are necessary for the Federal Government to do related to the State and local governments, we should understand that we need to have order in the midst of chaos to the extent we can so that we can ensure that our efforts are made to protect those who are least able to protect themselves. It is a terrible lesson that we had to learn once again, but it is a lesson that we ought to embrace and a lesson that we ought to utilize to assist us in any future problem. We have many things to look at over the next few weeks as we continue in response to this terrible tragedy, but I would hope that we would understand that those who are the least among us, those who are the weakest among us, need the support from the strongest, and that in very real terms necessitates every effort to protect order.