Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago a lady came to my office in my district whose husband had died before he had ever collected a single penny of Social Security. He had worked his entire life paying into the Social Security system thinking when he died, his wife would receive a survivor's benefit from his Social Security payments that would help keep her secure during her retirement. She sat in my office near tears explaining to me that because she had spent her career in teaching and because she receives a monthly Texas State teacher's retirement benefit, she would never see one penny from Social Security. To learn that she would have received a survivor's benefit if she had been drawing a retirement benefit from a private, rather than a public, retirement fund only added insult to her injury. Mr. Speaker, this is unfair and the government pension offset must be repealed. For the 6 years that I have been in Congress, I have cosponsored the legislation to end this unfair result caused by this provision we call the GPO. Last year 186 Members on both sides of the aisle cosponsored legislation to repeal this government pension offset. In spite of that support, the bill never has passed, never has received a full hearing in the committee. And in spite of the support in this Congress, section 418 of the bill before us moves in exactly the opposite direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to protect our teachers, to reject this bill today, to send it back to the Committee on Ways and Means with the understanding that the GPO should be repealed.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 28 (the Cardin substitute) I was unable to cast my vote because I was attending a briefing by Secretary Ridge and Secretary Thompson in the Roosevelt room at the White House on Project Bioshield and unable to return before the vote was closed. If I had been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 28. So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. TURNER of Texas

Mr. TURNER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their diligent efforts in trying to adequately fund our homeland security needs. And I think what this motion to recommit is all about on this floor today is to try to ensure that we do that promptly. I think we all know that September 11 was a declaration of war by terrorists against the United States. It was an unprecedented cruelty perpetrated against the American people that foreshadowed a new age in our country, a new kind of war, a new challenge. And this motion to recommit seeks to make good our response to that challenge. We clearly confront an enemy that lurks in the shadows, runs from battle; and we must be willing to make the necessary changes in our budgeting and the necessary sacrifices as a people to ensure that this new kind of war is won and won decisively by the United States. Today the frontline of the war on terror is found in places like the airports in Boston, the hospitals in Houston, the ports of Los Angeles. Those who fight this war for America are the police officers, the firefighters, the health care workers. They are the first on to respond to any kind of attack on our homeland, and they will be there to respond to those attacks. Mr. Speaker, in this new kind of war, the struggle to end an effort by a cruel and merciless foe, we know that victory will not come out without a dedication on our part to seeing this battle through. The keys to victory are vigilance, preparedness and perseverance; and that is why it is also important today to recommit this bill to ensure that we put the necessary money in the bill now to fund these very, very legitimate needs. I heard a State senator from my home State yesterday who said, Is homeland security going to be another unfunded mandate to the States? The answer to that should be clearly no. It is a national responsibility to protect this homeland; and the only way to do it is to put the money in the bill now to take care of these homeland security needs that I think the chairman and the ranking member of this committee both believe should be in it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Davis for the bipartisan manner in which we have worked to address the issues in H.R. 2458, the E-Government Act of 2002, as amendment. In addition to incorporating many of the changes agreed to by the Senate and Administration, we have been able to address concerns that I and others had with this legislation since the bill has been marked up by the Government Reform Committee. I thank Chairman Davis and Burton, as well as Representative Henry Waxman, ranking member of the Government Reform Committee, for working constructively with me on those issues. I believe all of us hope that this bill will become law before the end of the 107th Congress. The information technology revolution of the last decade has had a profound impact on almost all aspects of our economy and government. Providing a statutory basis for applying some of the impacts of that revolution to the federal government is a complicated, but necessary, step. The Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy has held numerous hearings on the issues H.R. 2458 addresses, and I want to commend Chairman Davis for his attention to this topic. When it comes to information technology, effective use of the internet, and other cutting edge information resources, the federal government is playing catch-up with the private sector, which seems to have been able to integrate the new technology into its day-to-day operations more rapidly and effectively than the federal government. And while we have played catch-up, we're losing money through inefficiency, and we're wasting the time of millions of citizens, who deserve the modern effective government information technology can help us achieve. This bill will go some way toward improving the federal government's use of information technology. That is why I, along with Senator Lieberman, introduced the E- Government Act, to help us move toward that goal by improving leadership and funding, as well as addressing other critical issues like privacy, training, and accessibility. I believe the measure holds great promise for improving government and its relationship to American citizens. The measure before us also incorporates other legislation which has bipartisan support, including bill Chairman Davis authored, H.R. 3844, the Federal Information Security Management Act, and H.R. 5215, the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act, introduced by Chairman Horn. These are all important measures and I urge my colleagues to support them. Discharged From Committee on Government Reform, Amended, and Agreed to H. Con. Res. 466, recognizing the significance of bread in American history, culture, and daily diet. H. Con. Res. 466 Whereas bread is a gift of friendship in the United States; Whereas bread is used as a symbol of unity for families and friends; Whereas the expression ``breaking bread together'' means sharing friendship, peace, and goodwill, and the actual breaking of bread together can help restore a sense of normalcy and encourage a sense of community; Whereas bread, the staff of life, not only nourishes the body but symbolizes nourishment for the human spirit; Whereas bread is used in many cultures to commemorate milestones such as births, weddings, and deaths; Whereas bread is the most consumed of grain foods, is recognized by the United States Department of Agriculture as part of the most important food group, and plays a vital role in American diets; Whereas Americans consume an average of 60 pounds of bread annually; Whereas bread has been a staple of American diets for hundreds of years; Whereas Americans are demonstrating a new interest in artisan and home-style types of breads, increasingly found in cafes, bakeries, restaurants, and homes across the country; Whereas bread sustained the Pilgrims during their long ocean voyage to America and was used to celebrate their first harvest in the American wilderness; and Whereas bread remains an important part of the family meal when Americans celebrate Thanksgiving, and the designation of November 2002 as National Bread Month would recognize the significance of bread in American history, culture, and daily diet: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress supports the goals of National Bread Month and encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe such month with appropriate ceremonies and activities. Taken From the Speaker's Table and Concurred in Senate Amendment H.R. 2621, to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to consumer product protection. Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we confront in this Chamber today a decision of utmost gravity, to authorize the President to use military force if necessary to remove the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons from the hands of Saddam Hussein. To risk the lives of our sons and daughters for this cause burdens the hearts and minds of every Member of Congress. For the past several weeks, we have weighed this decision in the balance. People of goodwill have had their differences of opinion. We know that military action by its nature is an assumption of risk, risk to the lives and safety of our military forces, risk of outcome and duration of battle, and risk of economic and political dislocations. In spite of these dangers, the greatest danger is to do nothing. The failure to act will leave an international outlaw undeterred and will sacrifice a freedom that President Franklin Roosevelt called fundamental, the freedom from fear. On a clear autumn morning on September 11 we were awakened to the reality of a new and growing threat to our security. We saw all too vividly how vulnerable our Nation can be to unconventional warfare. We were forced to face the stark reality that an international terrorist organization named al Qaeda exists and is dedicated to the destruction of America and our way of life. Our time-honored policy of security through deterrence backed by our overwhelming military superiority is no longer sufficient to protect our Nation from a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a single terrorist on a suicide mission. Opinions differ on the question of whether Saddam Hussein will engage in a terrorist act against our Nation or place weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, but there is no debate that the motive and the means are present; and, in my judgment, the threat is unacceptable. Much of what we know, we have known for a long time. We know Saddam Hussein has developed biological weapons. We know that Saddam has developed chemical weapons. We know that he has used them in war and against helpless civilians, and we know that he is working feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons. We know he has launched ballistic missiles at his neighboring countries of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel; and he continues to develop missiles that can hit American bases. We know he invaded Iran in 1980, causing the deaths of over 1 million people. We know he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and ordered the torture and murder of tens of thousands of civilians. We know this man and we know his works. He has the capability and he has the motive to bring great harm to our Nation. We have been at war with him for over 10 years. His hatred for the United States has no limits, and his cruelty and atrocities committed against his own people, his closest associates, and even his family leave no room to doubt his murderous nature. For 10 years the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions to open Iraq to weapons inspectors, to disarm Saddam, to take away his weapons of mass destruction. For 10 years he has avoided, evaded, and escaped the rules we tried to use to secure the peace. Saddam Hussein is in material breach of international law. Mr. Speaker, knowing these things to be true, to protect our homeland, to take weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of a tyrant, and to uphold the rule of law, I support the President in his request for authorization to use force, if necessary, to accomplish these goals in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is an international outlaw who is a clear and present danger to our country, and time is not on our side. To meet this threat, we will work with the United Nations, but we will not wait for the United Nations. We do not seek war, and the best way to avoid it is to be clear with our intent and be prepared to act. Saddam must have no doubt about our course. He can disarm or his days are numbered. Some have suggested that we adopt a two-step resolution that would assure our allies that we seek U.N. approval; and if approval is denied, the President would seek a second resolution from this Congress authorizing the use of unilateral force. This could weaken our President's hand in the effort to secure Security Council support and work contrary to our very interest of securing multilateral cooperation. If the U.N. declined to act and then we had a subsequent resolution on this floor, we would be in a position that we all seek to avoid; and in addition, a two-step resolution would detract from the effort to send a clear message to Saddam to give up his weapons of mass destruction without delay. The quest for America's security in the 21st century begins with us. The Bible tells us to whom much has been given, much is required. Our duty and our responsibility to future generations of Americans leave us no option but to act with resolve, with courage, and the will to win. America is a special place. God has blessed us beyond measure; and while a few pursue hatred and destruction and can bring us harm, there are millions every day who seek to come to this land of promise because we stand for peace, for justice, and for democracy.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an occasion when we all would join together in remembrance of those who lost their lives on September 11, as well as those who have lost their lives in other incidences to the acts of terrorism, and I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for joining with me in sponsoring this bill. We have had numerous Members who have joined together with us and who contributed to the product that we have before us today. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking Democrat, for his leadership. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the ranking member of the subcommittee. Each of them contributed to the product that we have before us today, along with the 121 cosponsors who have joined with us. I also want to acknowledge the help of some outstanding staffers, the majority staff member Ron Howarth who has worked so hard to be sure that this bill was in the proper form because of many complex issues that we deal with when we establish a memorial here in Washington. I also want to thank Trent Ashby and Amy Valentine of my staff for their work. We know that 2 weeks ago we observed the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our Nation. It was on that date in 2001 that our Nation was made acutely aware of the threats posed by those who seek to destroy our way of life. Since then we have come together as a Nation and remembered those who lost their lives and we have pledged jointly an unwavering resolve to win the war on terrorism no matter what the cost and no matter how long it takes. This legislation which was introduced by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and me would authorize the establishment of a national memorial to all the victims of terrorism in attacks against the United States or its people including those who died on September 11. It has been said that the war on terrorism may be known as the first war of the 21st century. It will not be marked by any specific geographic location because it is global. It has been and will be fought at home and abroad. This national memorial created by this bill will be dedicated to the memory of those victims who lose their lives and have lost their lives at the hands of terrorists. The memorial will reflect, in my view, the history of the struggle in which we are engaged, and it will remind future generations of the challenges that we faced and the challenges that we have overcome through courage and bravery of the American people. As the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) mentioned, this legislation creates a 13-member advisory board appointed by the President and includes representatives from organizations dedicated to assisting the victims of terrorism. The advisory board is charged with the duty of raising the funds from private sources to establish, design, construct and maintain this memorial. In accordance with the Commemorative Works Act, the advisory board will consult with the appropriate commissions already provided by existing law regarding the site selection and design of this memorial. When the House Committee on Resources held its hearing on this bill, we were honored, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) mentioned, to hear from several outstanding Americans whose lives, like so many Americans, were personally and forever changed on September 11. Their testimony spoke eloquently of the significance of a national memorial to the victims of terrorism. Liz Howell, who is on the staff of the Committee on Resources, whose husband, Brady, died at the Pentagon, said so eloquently ``I believe a national monument to terrorism would become a hallowed place for the people of this generation to remember and grieve. Perhaps even more importantly, it will teach future generations about the heroism, the sacrifice, and the patriotism that surrounded the deaths of people who simply died because they were Americans.'' That quote from Liz Howell represents, I think, so very eloquently the purposes embodied in this legislation. We heard from Lisa Beamer, whose husband Todd was among the heroes of flight 93. We had Joe Finley, a New York firefighter, who testified on behalf of this legislation, who lost many in his fire house who sacrificed their lives at the World Trade Center. Lt. Col. Ted Anderson, who rushed into the fiery flames of the Pentagon, saving many of his friends and colleagues there, spoke of a need for a national memorial. They all shared their hopes that this memorial would not only be a tribute to those who lost their lives but a constant reminder to the American people of the importance of courage, bravery, and patriotism. It is my hope that at some point in the future this memorial will mark a time in the course of our history when freedom and respect for the dignity of man overcame hate and evil. It will stand for the period in our history when our country stood tall, persevered and protected peace and civility for all mankind. Mr. Speaker, we hope that the House will join us in unanimously supporting this legislation to create this memorial to the victims of terrorism.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this September 11, the 1- year anniversary of the greatest tragedy on American soil in our history with a heavy heart, as I know is shared by all Americans, because it was on this day 1 year ago when almost 3,000 Americans lost their lives at the hands of evil terrorists who sought to destroy our Nation, who seek to destroy our way of life. We know from that experience that all Americans must stand tall against the threat of international terrorism. We know as Americans that we never, never, never want to experience that tragedy again. As a part of our history, we will always remember September 11 of last year. I come to the floor today to call upon the House to pass legislation entitled the National Memorial to the Victims of Terrorism Act. This legislation would memorialize all victims of terrorism, both those who have lost their lives on September 11, as well as those who have been victims of terrorism in previous times, as well as those who have died in the cause since. Since September 11 of last year, we have engaged in a battle in Afghanistan where 51 Americans have lost their lives. We know from experience that the war against terrorism will not be won quickly and that perhaps we may face this challenge for many years ahead. In many ways on September 11, the American people recognized for the first time that we were in fact engaged in a war against terrorism, even though we have had ample opportunity to define those events that occurred in previous years, taking the lives of American citizens and American soldiers, as a war. We understand that this legislation that we have introduced will memorialize those who lost their lives to terrorism. The legislation which we have introduced is entitled the National Memorial to the Victims of Terrorism. It was introduced by me and by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). It is a bipartisan piece of legislation that enjoys the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. The legislation would create a 13-member Victims of Terrorism Memorial Advisory Board appointed by the President in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Defense. Members of the advisory board would include appointees from organizations dedicated to assisting the victims of terrorism and their families. The board would begin the process of establishing a memorial not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this legislation. The advisory board would have the responsibility of raising the necessary funds from private sources to pay for this national memorial. Those who came and testified on behalf of this legislation in the committee last May spoke very eloquently about the importance of this national memorial. We had testimony from Lisa Beamer, the widow of Todd Beamer, who joined those brave passengers on Flight 93 and fought off the terrorists and saved this Capitol and many people who were in this building. We had testimony from Colonel Ted Anderson, who saved many victims when the Pentagon was struck by the aircraft on that fateful day. We had testimony from Joe Finley, a New York firefighter who worked hard and dedicated his efforts on that fateful day to saving the lives of those who were struck in the World Trade Center. We also had testimony from Liz Howell, a staffer on the Committee on Resources staff that heard of this bill who lost her husband at the Pentagon on September 11. Each of these individuals shared heartfelt testimony as to why it is important for Americans to mark this event with a national memorial, and why it is also important to reflect in this memorial the memory of all who have lost their lives to terrorism. The war on terrorism is indeed the first war of the 21st century. It will not be one marked by any one geographic location. It is a global war. It is a global war that will be fought both at home and abroad. Though they have lost their lives in places far and near over a span of time that includes the past, the present and perhaps the future, the victims of terrorism, both civilian and military, deserve solemn tribute, for they died at the hands of the enemies of America simply because they were Americans. I call upon the leadership of this Congress to promptly set this bill for hearing in order that we may act promptly and pass the National Memorial to the Victims of Terrorism Act.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that we are offering here on the floor today is the language that was approved by the Committee on Government Reform that was sent to the special panel. In the Committee on Government Reform it was adopted without opposition, with bipartisan support. The amendment is very important because it allows the timely deployment of advanced technology in the fight against terrorism, while at the same time preserving the legal rights and remedies that are available to the victims of any terrorist incident. The amendment extends to the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that purchase anti-terrorism technologies a common practice of indemnity that has been around for a long, long time at the Department of Defense. In fact, this authority has existed since 1958 when President Eisenhower issued an executive order under law which allowed indemnity to be granted by the Secretary of Defense to certain of our defense contractors. The concept of indemnity is not only one that has been with us for a while, but has been used most recently by President Bush when he granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to give indemnity to the manufacturers of Cipro after the anthrax scare. The language that we offer today came to the attention of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy of the Committee on Government Reform and to me as the ranking member. It was brought to our attention by Federal contractors, a coalition including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the Information Technology Association of America. Our language, which was adopted by the committee, allows discretion in the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant in whole or in part indemnity against potential liabilities. It requires that the companies carry insurance up to the amount that they reasonably can. This legislation is modeled, as I said, after existing law and practice; and as they say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' So we are again offering today our language, which we believe is fiscally responsible, which is understandable, and which is supported in a bipartisan way. The language that we have in our amendment protects the Federal Treasury. It has been suggested by those who support the alternative language that is in the bill that somehow we open the doors of the Treasury if we grant indemnity. Our language makes it very clear that the indemnity offered by the Secretary can be limited, limited in amount, limited in scope. And once the Secretary makes the decision to grant indemnity, it must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget. We believe this is a much superior way to get technology deployed in a rapid manner, which is what this amendment is all about. The alternative language in the bill is going to slow down the process. It requires an FDA-type approval procedure that would allow the director of Homeland Security to examine the equipment and then certify it. We think that is the wrong approach, and we will urge adoption of our amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank, first, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his efforts with me in crafting this language. We both worked with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and the Information Technology Association to come forward with this language that we reported out of the Committee on Government Reform unanimously without opposition. The gentleman from Virginia and I brought the amendment to the attention of the Committee on Rules. And I am very grateful we had the opportunity, Mr. Leader, to offer the amendment. I must say that it is somewhat surprising to hear the criticism from the other side today of what is existing law. The Department of Defense grants indemnity to companies that launch missiles because of the concern of those corporations about business risk. I was quite surprised to hear the provision criticized, because it has been in the law since 1958 and was first implemented by President Eisenhower and most recently used by President Bush when he authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to indemnify the manufacturers of Cipro who would not provide that to our government unless we did so. Our amendment follows existing law, existing practice and, most importantly, does not take anyone's legal rights away from them. I would urge the House to join with us in supporting this bipartisan amendment. Twenty Democrats and 21 Republicans wrote a letter to the special panel asking them to include our language in the bill. We enjoy bipartisan support. We believe it is the right way to deal with a very serious problem. And we will be able, under our amendment, to get the technology out there and in place much quicker than the approach that is in the bill which requires an FDA-type review process for every piece of equipment and will take years to implement the technology we need to fight terrorism.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the overwhelming majority of the American people play by the rules every day, and they pay their taxes. I cannot explain to those folks why in the world an American corporation can relocate in a tax haven overseas with just a Post Office box and a corporate certificate, and avoid paying any taxes. I cannot explain to hard-working Americans how their tax dollars can go to buy goods and services from those companies that do not even contribute to the cost of our government. I cannot explain to the American people how we allow companies to do business with our government and bid on our government contracts when they have an advantage over their competitors because these companies are not paying any taxes. We have got to change the tax law. We have got to make sure that companies do not profit by doing business with the government and are not willing to support this government. We are in time of war, and I think it is essential that tonight we send a strong message of corporate responsibility to America's corporations and say it is time to stop this practice. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to address an amendment that I will offer on this floor tomorrow relating to indemnity of Federal contractors who will provide to the government sophisticated antiterrorism equipment. The language that I will offer on the floor tomorrow was passed unanimously by the Committee on Government Reform, but unfortunately taken out of the bill by the Republican majority on a special panel. I was very amused when I looked at some talking points about the amendment I will offer tomorrow that was put out by the Republican leadership tonight. It says, and I quote, The trial lawyers, through an amendment expected to be offered by Representative Turner, and I might say I find that very amusing because the amendment I am offering tomorrow was prepared by Representative Tom Davis, and I as the chairman and ranking member of the Technology and Procurement Subcommittee of Government Reform, and the amendment was brought to me by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and the Information Technology Association of America. What it simply asked was that we extend to the Department of Homeland Security the authority that current law already gives to the Department of Defense to indemnify against claims of damage over certain limits. It has been suggested that this approach, which as I say is already in existing law for the Department of Defense, will open the Treasury of the United States to unlimited claims. But I would like to point out that the amendment I offer makes it very clear that the director of OMB and the director of Homeland Security can limit the indemnity in any amount they see fit. I would urge Members to join us in restoring this language tomorrow.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we are debating tonight this bill because our fiscal house is in total disarray. After 8 years of shrinking deficits, and finally reaching one true surplus in fiscal year 2000, we have seen over the last months a deteriorating fiscal condition that has allowed us to be bumping up against the $5.95 trillion statutory debt ceiling, when we were told by Secretary O'Neill just a year ago we would not reach it until 2008. The truth of the matter is that we need to return to fiscal responsibility. We need to stop raiding the Social Security trust fund. If any corporate executive in America raided the employees' retirement trust funds, they would be thrown into jail. Yet we are doing it tonight. The truth is, the Democrats have laid out a plan. That plan has been introduced in the form of legislation. That plan says we will agree to a $150 billion increase in the debt ceiling immediately and no further increase until we have a plan to return us to a balanced budget by 2007, until we establish spending caps to control our spending, and until we strengthen and extend the pay-go rules. That is the Democratic plan. That is what this House should be approving tonight.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot said on this floor tonight, but what really is going to count is what is said when we get out there talking to those seniors that we are trying to help here tonight. I traveled all over my district and collected pill bottles from those seniors, and I know how they feel, and they are going to ask some tough questions of us. If this plan passes, they are going to want to know and they are going to hand me that list of medicines they have been prescribed by their doctor and they are going to ask, are these medicines going to be covered under this plan? And if you give them an honest answer, you are going to have to say, I do not know, because you do not know. They are going to say, how much is the premium going to be for this plan? If you give them an honest answer, you are going to say, I do not know. That is going to depend on what the insurance company that is going to carry this plan is going to charge you. Then they may look at you and say, well, can I get this plan at my local pharmacy? You know the answer to that one. The answer is no. You are going to have to get it through mail order. And if you look at them again and they say, this does not sound like too good a program, how do I know that this program is going to be there? The answer is you do not know because those Medicare HMOs have not been there for our seniors. So I think what we have got to do tonight is be honest with our seniors and tell them we are passing a sham tonight, a sham that means nothing to these seniors, and what we have got to do is pass a real plan, a real Medicare plan for our seniors.